Although this is kind of lengthy and requires your full attention, I am sure the time it takes you to read this will be much shorter than the time it took me to type this up. Please try and keep on an open mind, and at least be ready to change your stance on this particular issue of 97% consensus of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (hereon AGW) claim. This claim states that humans are the primary drivers of climate change via C02 emissions.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature (Oreskes) has been illegitimately used as propaganda by spreading the idea that 97% of scientists agree that humans (namely CO2) is the primary factor which has caused warming over the last century.
AGW is an unproven hypothesis, based largely on incomplete, and faulty computer simulations and biased interpretation of historical data. This is partly due to the impetus for some climate scientists to endorse AGW as truth in order to keep their jobs, and keep the funding stream active, just as oil companies have some reason to reject AGW. But overall, the impetus to reject AGW is little to none, except for the tainted oil-funded researchers, whom for the most part are greatly outnumbered by the supposedly non-partisan climate researchers.
That being said, let's get to a proper analysis of the Oreskes paper. starting with the follow interesting section:
Each abstract was categorized by two independent, anonymized raters. A team of 12 individuals completed 97.4% (23 061) of the ratings; an additional 12 contributed the remaining 2.6% (607). Initially, 27% of category ratings and 33% of endorsement ratings disagreed. Raters were then allowed to compare and justify or update their rating through the web system, while maintaining anonymity. Following this, 11% of category ratings and 16% of endorsement ratings disagreed; these were then resolved by a third party.
What this means is that 1/3 of the paper's abstracts were not clear enough to distinguish it's stance on the following categories established in Oreskes paper.
Primary cause is humans with quantification
Humans cause some level of global warming without quantification
Explicit rejection with quantification
We already are beginning to understand that the categorization method might have a mis-rating frequency as high as 33% (out of ~12,000 papers = 4,000 papers) which is quite poor and attests to the complexity of the papers analyzed, and the lack of a clear conclusion in many.
Next, for "simplification" the authors decide to reduce the 8 categories above into 4 (See section 3. Results) which is a very puzzling decision to me. Especially since those 8 categories were generated to begin with. Why? To simplify and lump the statistics into bins which satisfy their preconceived notions.
The below table is critical.
Do you see how the 97.1% is an imaginary number made by a biased Oreskes who was already decided on what the paper's outcome should be? So, I ask you, what's wrong with that number? Those who politicize these issues (including Jon Oliver) somehow forgot to properly understand that table (and other graphs I'll analyze below.)
Please watch that 1 minute video; Jon Oliver says precisely:
"What is the overwhelming view of the entire scientific community?"
Where are the 66.4% of climate scientists sitting around not claiming to know the answer (he brought out 2 'rejectors' and 96 endorsers) ? Why are only 34.6% scientists on stage. And why they are being represented as a 97% consensus both beats me and saddens me deeply.
He also says "This entire debate should not have happened"
He can go back to making jokes (and nothing else) leaving statistics, math, and real science to people who care about representing the truth. He's proved himself incompetent or a sell out to me, which is why I am very skeptical about all he (and his writing team) has to say in the realm of science (and politics.)
Bill Nye says "Humans are causing climate change. No question"
Yea Bill Nye? Perhaps you got paid to say that? I wonder what the 66.4% actual scientists think, rather than a has-been non-climate (barely) scientist. Wait ... we know what they think: they are not sure, and that there are unanswered questions and uncertainty. The complete opposite to what Shill Nye has to say.
It gets worse; better for my neutral position (That AGW is an unproven hypothesis). Take a look at the following charts:
What do they tell us? They tell us that over the time period of 1990 to 2010:
1) The percentage of abstracts being produced which endorse AGW decreased.
2) The percentage which could not conclude with a position on AGW increased.
3) The percentage which reject has remained roughly the same.
The computer models supposedly proving AGW and the relation between C02 and temperature have been shown to be wrong. As is said in the realm of computer simulation: GIGO (Garbage In / Garbage Out.) There is, in fact, a reason that more scientists are not endorsing a supportive position of AGW over time (neither rejection nor acceptance of AGW.). Climate change is more complex than we thought, and we don't have a final answer. Far from it (although evidence shows that there are many other factors other than the AGW claim that are likely drivers)
What follows is quite a silly chart:
Note the caption. "Percentage of papers endorsing the consensus among only papers that express a position endorsing or rejecting. As elaborated on, in this email, she produces this chart completely eliminating the 66.4% of educated scientists who are aware of the complexities and uncertainty inherent in such a complex system, intentionally misrepresenting the real truth as opposed to her "truth."
The scientists who choose not to endorse or reject are not uneducated about the topic of climate change, climate science, and the supposed AGW claim, they are simply better scientists for being able to take the no position stance in the face of complex data.
In my opinion, there is a rather small group of people that benefit in massive industry reform and are attempting to mutate the unknowing politicians and public's opinion into believing that humans are the primary cause of global warming. Yes, in the end the public's opinion means squat. But politicians not in on it are just as likely to be either intentionally or unintentionally bamboozled.
Now compare the analysis above to the following propaganda and tell me what you think? https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
As a bonus, here's a gem of a video of Al Gore being questioned critically.