"97% of scientists agree"

Almost everyone has heard or read that there is "97% consensus on global warming."  While it's nice to be in the majority (if that number is accurate), does it matter?  Galileo was in the minority about his views, so was Einstein, initially.  When I was young, scientists thought margarine was better for you; now it's butter.  Science isn't established on "consensus," but rather on proof. 

There are articles that support this number and are against this.  It's much easier to disprove this claim than prove it.  To do so, however, we need to know:

• How many scientists are there?
• How many have qualifications to have an informed opinion?
• Do they have a bias?  (Are they funded by organizations that want a result one direction  or another?)
• How do you define "consensus?"
• Are the survey's anonymous?
• In the current culture of climatology, does believing one way bring social stigma?
• Does believing one way bring more funding? 

The latter two are particularly important questions.  An acquaintance of mine was visiting with two climate scientists and he asked them both bluntly, "Do you believe in man-made global warming?"  They both laughed and one said, "You do if you want funding."   That makes one think, especially after watching this interview by John Stossel of climate scientist Judith Curry,  who retired from academia because of the vitriolic pressure she received when she came out against the "consensus."

She says, "a group of [climate] scientists were strategizing to squash their opponents."  Later she says, "What scientists agree upon is a very thin slice..."  They agree that the climate is getting warmer and the carbon dioxide  creates more warming, but "there's no agreement on whether warming is dangerous or not."  For that she became one of seven academics attacked by politicians and made to disclose her funding sources.  She adds that she regularly gets emails where colleagues say they wish they could speak out as she did.

This kind of behavior by scientists is not appropriate--even if they think their opponent is wrong--and casts a huge shadow on the claim that "97% of scientists agree."  If your stand is so clearly right, why resort to such tactics?



Additional things to think about:

• List of 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against Man-Made Global Warming
• Scientists who signed a petition saying they don't agree (critics say only a small fraction are climate scientists, so they should be ignored; but is that restriction valid regarding the 97% figure)
• 700+ International Scientists who disagree listed in the US Senate minority report
• Climategate (mentioned by Judith Curry) information from Forbes and the UK.
• Admission by a NOAA scientist of manipulating data