As seen in previous post, the statements to describe the consensus in The Consensus Project were actually not very truthful. The suggestion was that the queried scientific papers concluded that global warming is a reality and direct result of our actions. This was not the case. Only few paper investigated the physics and most of the papers started from the assumption that global warming is a reality. That is something different altogether.
There also was the suggestion that the authors investigated “climate papers”, which was not the case. They investigated papers with the terms “global warming” and “global climate change” somewhere in the title and/or the abstract. A lot of papers weren’t even about climate research at all.
Therefor I called it inflating the consensus. They presented their case well beyond the scope of their paper (and also previous papers).
Today’s post will be about another aspect of misdirection. The two statements on that page:
Every year, more and more peer-reviewed scientific papers have concluded that global warming is a reality, and a direct result of our actions.
97% of published climate papers with a position on human-caused global warming agree: Global warming is happening – and we are the cause.
could be interpreted in more than one way. When we just look at the words, it could be understood whether the papers endorse a warming and to what extent humans were considered the cause. But this statement is not used in such a neutral way. If we look at the bottom of the page we see a link to “About the solutions”.
They used the term “Global Warming” not in the sense that “there is a warming and we are the cause”, but in the sense that “there is a warming, we are the cause and it has bad enough consequences that we need to solve it”. This is not what was investigated. In fact the statement they investigated is something so general that most alarmist and skeptics alike could agree on this. Most of the skeptics I know agree there is a warming since a century and a half and they also agree that humans have some influence on this. This statement is not controversial.
Nowhere in the Cook survey was investigated whether this warming is bad enough for the need to take action. It is also not what the consensus is about. To me this is a disconnect with what is investigated and how it is brought to the public. I think those who went to the Cook lecture or had a look into their project database, could make the distinction. But I am sure that the public at large can not make that distinction when presented with only this misleading information.