0.3 percent consensus, not 97 percent
In this new era of ‘global boiling’, it is worth revisiting the much-touted ’97 percent consensus’ lie
Science is not done by consensus, it isn’t a vote. Consensus is a political tool, it has no place in science.
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. – Michael Crichton
Regarding ‘global boiling’, the widely-publicized ’97 percent consensus’ study was done by the Australian former cartoonist John Cook — a conclusion that to this day is routinely regurgitated by AGW Party members:
97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible. – John Kerry
But the analysis is patently wrong, and demonstrates a complete misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of the data.
Climate researcher David Legates demolished Cook’s study soon after its publication.
Unfortunately though, Legates’ revelatory findings –“0.3 percent consensus, not 97 percent”– was not so widely circulated.
You read that right — the much-vaunted ‘97 percent consensus’ turns out to be a mere ‘0.3 percent consensus’.
Today, the claim that almost all published papers support AGW ‘in some way’ is indeed on its face correct, but only because the vast majority of skeptical papers are now refused at peer-review or publication.
The entire process has been completely subverted to support the UN’s ‘global boiling’ position, which gives the entirely misleading impression that everyone agrees, when they most certainly do not.
Alarmists are quick to claim that ‘the science is settled’, that ‘the debate is over’, but little do they realize the scientific establishment is now setup in such a way to allow only certain theories and particular narratives to enter the public domain.
An honest pursuit of the truth has been traded for the interests of the powerful — AGW has fallen foul of this.
We find ourselves in a reality where facts and fibs are nigh-on impossible to distinguish between, which is by design.
Even the critical thinking among us are having a hard time finding which way is up; and as for the trusting, those conditioned by the factory schooling system to accept the mainstream narrative as read, no matter how absurd, well, there is no hope for them.
One truth does remain, however, and forever will: the science, in any subject, is never settled, and so scientific debate should never be censored.
My new favorite line doing the rounds: “Follow The Silence”.
See more here electroverse
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.