Fist up is John Cook on Manufacturing doubt about climate consensus.
Scientists have observed distinctive greenhouse patterns such as winters warming faster than summers and a cooling upper
atmosphere. This consilience of evidence has resulted in overwhelming agreement among experts — 97 per cent of climate scientists
agree that humans are causing global warming. But where does the 97 per cent figure come from?
Then there’s Ross McKitrick answering the question that the Claim that 97% of scientists support climate alarm cannot be supported.
In my column I pointed out that people who invoke the 97 per cent consensus often leave vague what is actually being agreed upon.
John Cook does this too: Note that his wording is consistent with a range of interpretations, including that greenhouse gases
definitely cause only a tiny bit of global warming.
He cannot claim that 97 per cent of scientists believe greenhouse gases cause a lot of warming and that this is a big problem, since the surveys either didn’t ask this, or did but didn’t find 97 per cent support.
Who is it that is going psych by putting up the issue of denial as an item of interest? Who is carefully defining terms and issues? Who is alleging “cherry picking” without specification or rebuttal?
Yes behavior is an important factor to consider. But rather than label that behavior in derisive terms (e.g. “denier”), look for choices of words and manner of reasoning. There is a good comparison here.