The oft-quoted "97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and caused by humans" number bugs me. Who are those 3%?
OK, there's Richard Lindzen and (maybe) Judith Curry. But wouldn't that make it like 99.99%? Maybe it's still correct; maybe it needs revisiting.
OK, there's Richard Lindzen and (maybe) Judith Curry. But wouldn't that make it like 99.99%? Maybe it's still correct; maybe it needs revisiting.
This isn't "groupthink" on my part, either. Over the course of my career, I've seen precisely no convincing evidence for non-warming, and precisely no convincing explanation for warming other than human emissions. And I can't imagine that 3% of my colleagues have.
There's evidence that those 3% are mainly cranks, and should therefore probably be filtered out. But I suppose applying that filter in a fair and objective way is difficult. link.springer.com/article/10.100…
Unfortunately, this nuance doesn't come through in "97%." Those who deeply want to reject the reality of climate change (can you blame them?) might actually be heartened by hearing "3% don't agree," as opposed to being impressed by the level of consensus. Even if that 3% is crap.
