I couldn’t agree more.
“There can’t be much more consensus than getting all the lead consensus study authors together to write a consensus on the consensus study. “
Michelle Stirling writes:
A critical review of the most recent Cook et al (2016) consensus study.
There can’t be much more consensus than getting all the lead consensus study authors together to write a consensus on the consensus study. However, in my opinion, this Cook et al (2016) study suffers from the same problematic issues of earlier studies – beginning with the premise. I deconstruct. Comments welcome.
Consensus Nonsensus on 97%: Science is Not a Democracy
Stirling, Michelle, Consensus Nonsensus on 97%: Science is Not a Democracy (July 10, 2016). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2807652
Abstract:
A number of scholars who have previously undertaken studies on the alleged ‘consensus’ of the human impact on global warming have recently published a paper (Cook et al. 2016) which they claim confirms and strengthens their previous 97% consensus claims. This author rejects their findings and deconstructs both the premise of the relevance of consensus…
View original post 72 more words
