The source for the 97% claim is usually the Cook2013 survey. Is a phrase like '...carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change' in a paper abstract really enough to be counted part of the 97%? Some of the surveyed authors disagree with their classification [0,1].

Cook2013: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/0240...

[0] http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-cl... [1] http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048...

The most recent study (2015) on your second link that is a literal survey has 93.7% consensus.

The next valid study in (2014) is 87%.

It then throws in a study that includes people who aren't scientists with lower numbers.

Then you have Cook.

Then you have another study with 90% consensus.

Then another two more that includes non-scientists.

Then one with a different question.

Then one with a 100% consensus based on published scientists.

Then another one that includes non-scientists.

The range is from 87% to 100% consensus with 2 of 5 at 97% or greater.

I understand you are trying to argue I'm wrong but the moment you start referencing personal blogs and studies that include non-scientists, you aren't really debunking what I said to any great degree and none of the years overlap sufficiently so its really a charge of a trend of belief over time combined with different methodologies.

100% -> 90% -> 97% -> 87% -> 93.7%

That makes perfect sense given science is always going to uncover new evidence that there was some variation over a 15 year period.

Precisely.

Now imagine a publication that only presents the results of the other 3%.

Using that logic, you can never trust a single doctor because you need to see 20 of them to get a balanced perspective.

Using that logic, when presented with the perspective from 20 doctors reaching two different conclusions, you present both perspectives and conclusions. Furthermore, you do not suggest whom to trust.

Also, it is somewhat ironic that you chose doctors as an example, as this is the area where it is common practice to get a second opinion when presented with a material conclusion.

> Also, it is somewhat ironic that you chose doctors as an example, as this is the area where it is common practice to get a second opinion when presented with a material conclusion.

A second opinion doesn't require a 20 person sample size to have a a reasonable chance of landing on someone who shares your views.

There is a reason it is to get a second opinion, not 20 opinions.

The basic problem here isn't the irony you perceive but the fact literally _nothing_ in modern medicine functions if you require 97% consensus.

A doctor that manipulates you for some purpose that has nothing to do with your health may very well end up losing a license and go to jail. A journalists doing the same just calls it Tuesday.

> A doctor that manipulates you for some purpose that has nothing to do with your health may very well end up losing a license and go to jail. A journalists doing the same just calls it Tuesday.

So your argument is scientists are equivalent to journalists who solely exist to manipulate you?

You are free to stop using a computer, taking medication, and driving a car in that case.

> So your argument is scientists are equivalent to journalists

Erm, what? How is that my argument?

> journalists who solely exist to manipulate you?

I don't say they exist "solely" to manipulate - I say they consider manipulating part of allowable and normal behavior, and this should be corrected. Until this is done, the level of trust we allow to a journalist should be much lower than one allowed to a doctor. Because the doctor is supposed to be on your side, and the journalist is not.

> You are free to stop using a computer, taking medication, and driving a car in that case.

You seem to be answering something completely unrelated to my comment in any way. Please don't do that.