Warmist Mike Hulme: “The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed…it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it”


By: - Climate DepotJuly 25, 2013 9:48 AM

Warmist Mike Hulme: “The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed…it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it”

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2013/07/warmist-mike-hulme-97-consensus-article.html

Making Science Public » What’s behind the battle of received wisdoms?Ben Pile is spot on. The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in Anderegg et al.’s 2010 equally poor study in PNAS: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?