Unfortunately, this should go in the WUWT Resources, perhaps under a new category “Climate Myths”.

dmacleo says:
May 30, 2014 at 4:13 pm
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/30/lawrence-solomon-75-climate-scientists-think-humans-contribute-to-global-warming/
Very good, dmacleo. I had a hard time finding the original 97% figure basis. Even on WUWT.
There are a lot of legal articles about John Cook 97%, but it’s hard to find the 75 out of 77 article/issue.

Regarding two “97%” surveys that warmists more often cite, here is a summary of most of their flaws, by WUWT-commenter Robin Guenier:

“The flaws in the Doran paper are well known: (A) it used a hopelessly inadequate sample size (79 respondents) and demographic (nearly all from N America) and (B) in any case, most sceptics would agree with both its propositions: (1) that the world has warmed since the 1700s and (2) that mankind contributed. It made no mention of GHG emissions.
“Anderegg is more sophisticated than the hopeless Doran. But there’s a basic problem: it’s concerned with whether or not respondents agree that “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most [i.e. more than 50%] of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century”. The only scientists qualified to evaluate that are those engaged in detection and attribution (both difficult and uncertain). Yet the research was not confined to such scientists.
“And, in any case, the research itself is flawed. First, the total number of “climate researchers” who accepted the above statement was, according to the paper, 903 and the total that did not was 472. In other words, 66% – not the much-claimed 97%. The researchers got their 97% by restricting their findings to researchers “most actively publishing in the field” – in other words, the paper’s findings do not cover all “climate scientists”. Further, it wasn’t an opinion survey at all, but an analysis of scientists who signed pro/anti statements – not the most useful documents. And, again, it was essentially confined to North America and was not concerned with whether or not the warming was dangerous. For these reasons, it’s valueless as a measure of climate scientists’ opinion about the dangers of AGW.”

This George Mason Univ. poll [run for them by the Harris polling organization in 2007] http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union. It did not cherry pick the respondants who gave them the answer they wanted, and it asked more sophisticated questions [than the Doran and Anderegg surveys], below:
Under its “Major Findings” are these paragraphs:
“Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.
“Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest [11%] are unsure.
“Scientists still debate the dangers. A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is NOT “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”
“A slight majority (56%) see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cites this increase as the point beyond which additional warming would produce major environmental disruptions.)
“Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.”
IOW, 59% doubt the “catastrophic” potential of AGW. I suspect that number would be higher now, after six more flat years.

Tom Port says:
May 30, 2014 at 3:34 pm
Well. I for one am still a strong supporter of Obama for a whoe host of reasons, but I have to agree he and his advisers on climate need to listen to the skeptic side rather than dismissing it. Sadly, he is apparently only listening to the climate doomsayers who grabbed the bit in their teeth thirty years ago and, if they don’t stop soon to rethink the issue, are about to gallop off the cliff as a result.
+++++++++++
Maybe we can help, Tom, since you sound reasonable. As a skeptic, I did not like Obama not too long after he opened his mouth during the 2008 election. At first I found him charming, but then I listened to his words, and found him divisive. He stirs racial tensions that were not there, thus creating them, he wants to make our energy prices soar, and he pits have-nots against the haves. He’s incredibly duplicitous.
Anyway – Could you provide the “Host of reasons” you are strong supporter” of Mr. Obama?

The 97% “myth” is not a myth. It is a lie. It is a big lie, It is so big it is beyond a big lie.

So, is it time for a properly designed and conclusive survey to be conducted? Without the tricks and dishonesty.

Steven Mosher says:
May 30, 2014 at 5:50 pm
Riddle me this, riddle me that. Deconstructing the consensus using my alter ego, [trimmed].
______________________
WTF are you talking about? Speak up! You are either defending the 97% consensus myth, or you are not. None of your Batman nonsense, speak up or GTF down the road.

Is the alter ego the reasonable guy? I notice [trimmed].
This is not [snipped] so, are you playing more odd ball games? Sounds like you have no alter ego as this is distinctly Mosheresk.
[Reply: see mod comment above. ~mod.]

Alan Robertson: Yes – specifically your recent post to Mosher… seriously – WTF is he thinking?