The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,
“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 [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”
– Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)
The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science.
[ Journal Coverage ]
Energy Policy – Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (October 2014)
Energy Policy – Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder (October 2014)
Science & Education – Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change (August 2013)
[ Media Coverage ]
American Thinker – Climate Consensus Con Game (February 17, 2014)
Breitbart – Obama’s ’97 Percent’ Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart (September 8, 2014)
Canada Free Press – Sorry, global warmists: The ’97 percent consensus’ is complete fiction (May 27, 2014)
Financial Post – Meaningless consensus on climate change (September 19, 2013)
Financial Post – The 97%: No you don’t have a climate consensus (September 25, 2013)
Forbes – Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims (May 30, 2013)
Fox News – Balance is not bias — Fox News critics mislead public on climate change (October 16, 2013)
Herald Sun – That 97 per cent claim: four problems with Cook and Obama (May 22, 2013)
Power Line – Breaking: The “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard (May 18, 2014)
Spiked – Global warming: the 97% fallacy (May 28, 2014)
The Daily Caller – Where Did ’97 Percent’ Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From? (May 16, 2014)
The Daily Telegraph – 97 per cent of climate activists in the pay of Big Oil shock! (July 23, 2013)
The Guardian – The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up (June 6, 2014)
The New American – Global Warming “Consensus”: Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013)
The New American – Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW” Debunked (June 5, 2013)
The New American – Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% “Consensus” Fraud (May 20, 2014)
The Patriot Post – The 97% Consensus — A Lie of Epic Proportions (May 17, 2013)
The Patriot Post – Debunking the ‘97% Consensus’ & Why Global Cooling May Loom (August 7, 2014)
The Press-Enterprise – Don’t be swayed by climate change ‘consensus’ (September 10, 2013)
The Tampa Tribune – About that ’97 percent’: It ain’t necessarily so (May 19, 2014)
The Wall Street Journal – The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’ (May 26, 2014)
Troy Media – Bandwagon psychology root of 97 per cent climate change “consensus” (February 18, 2014)
WND – Black Jesus’ Climate Consensus Fantasy (June 25, 2013)
[ Organization Coverage ]
Competitive Enterprise Institute – Consensus Shmensus (September 5, 2013)
Cornwall Alliance – Climate Consensus? Nonsense! (June 16, 2014)
Friends of Science – Friends of Science Challenge the Cook Study for Bandwagon Fear Mongering on Climate Change and Global Warming (May 21, 2013)
Friends of Science – Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus (May 28, 2013)
Friends of Science – 97% Consensus? No! Global Warming Math Myths & Social Proofs (PDF) (February 3, 2014)
Friends of Science – Climate Change Is a Fact of Life, the Science Is Not Settled and 97% Consensus on Global Warming Is a Math Myth (February 4, 2014)
George C. Marshall Institute – The Corruption of Science (October 5, 2014)
John Locke Foundation – The 97% consensus on global warming exposed (July 3, 2014)
Liberty Fund – David Friedman on the 97% Consensus on Global Warming (February 27, 2014)
Global Warming Policy Foundation – Consensus? What Consensus? (PDF) (September 2, 2013)
Global Warming Policy Foundation – Fraud, Bias And Public Relations: The 97% ‘Consensus’ And Its Critics (PDF) (September 8, 2014)
National Center for Policy Analysis – The Big Lie of the “Consensus View” on Global Warming (July 30, 2014)
National Center for Public Policy Research – Do 97% of All Climate Scientists Really Believe Mankind is Causing Catastrophic Global Warming? (February 10, 2014)
Principia Scientific International – Exposed: Academic Fraud in New Climate Science Consensus Claim (May 23, 2013)
The Heartland Institute – What 97 Percent of Climate Scientists Do (May 12, 2014)
[ Weblog Coverage ]
Australian Climate Madness – ‘Get at the truth, and not fool yourself’ (May 29, 2014)
Bishop Hill – ‘Landmark consensus study’ is incomplete (May 27, 2013)
Climate Audit – UnderCooked Statistics (May 24, 2013)
Climate Etc. – The 97% ‘consensus’ (July 26, 2013)
Climate Etc. – The 97% ‘consensus’: Part II (July 27, 2013)
Climate Etc. – The 97% feud (July 27, 2014)
Climate Resistance – Tom Curtis Doesn’t Understand the 97% Paper (July 27, 2013)
JoNova – Cook’s fallacy “97% consensus” study is a marketing ploy some journalists will fall for (May 17, 2013)
JoNova – That’s a 0.3% consensus, not 97% (July 1, 2013)
JoNova – “Honey, I shrunk the consensus” – Monckton takes action on Cooks paper (September 24, 2013)
JoNova – John Cook’s consensus data is so good his Uni will sue you if you discuss it (May 18, 2014)
JoNova – Uni Queensland defends legal threats over “climate” data they want to keep secret (May 21, 2014)
JoNova – Cook scores 97% for incompetence on a meaningless consensus (June 6, 2014)
José Duarte (Ph.D.) – Cooking stove use, housing associations, white males, and the 97% (August 28, 2014)
José Duarte (Ph.D.) – The art of evasion (September 9, 2014)
Making Science Public – What’s behind the battle of received wisdoms? (July 23, 2013)
Popular Technology.net – 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists’ Papers, according to the scientists that published them (May 21, 2013)
Popular Technology.net – The Statistical Destruction of the 97% Consensus (June 1, 2013)
Popular Technology.net – Cook’s 97% Consensus Study Game Plan Revealed (June 4, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – The Consensus Project: An update (August 16, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Biases in consensus data (August 24, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – More irregularities in the consensus data (August 24, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Open letter to the Vice-chancellor of the University of Queensland (August 27, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Bootstrap results for initial ratings by the Consensus Project (August 28, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – The 97% consensus (May 10, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – My First Audioslide (May 20, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – A new contribution to the consensus debate (June 4, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – 24 errors? (June 8, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – More Cook data released (July 21, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Days of rater bias (July 23, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Days of rater bias (ctd) July 28, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Another chapter on the 97% nonsensus (August 1, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – ERL does not want you to read this (October 14, 2014)
The Blackboard – I Do Not Think it Means What You Think it Means (May 15, 2013)
The Blackboard – On the Consensus (May 17, 2013)
The Blackboard – Nir Shaviv: One of the 97% (May 17, 2013)
The Blackboard – Why Symmetry is Bad (May 19, 2013)
The Blackboard – Possible Self-Selection Bias in Cook: Author responses. (May 20, 2013)
The Blackboard – Bias Author Survey: Pro AGW (May 21, 2013)
The Lid – Claim 97% of Climate Scientists Believe In Global Warming is TOTALLY BOGUS! (May 21, 2014)
The State of the Climate – Cook’s survey not only meaningless but also misleading (May 17, 2013)
WUWT – The Collapsing ‘Consensus’ (May 22, 2013)
WUWT – Self admitted cyber thief Peter Gleick is still on the IOP board that approved the Cook 97% consensus paper (June 4, 2013)
WUWT – ‘Quantifying the consensus on global warming in the literature’: a comment (June 24, 2013)
WUWT – On the 97 percenters: ‘You Must Admit, They Were Careful’ (July 28, 2013)
WUWT – What Is Cook’s Consensus? (July 29, 2013)
WUWT – Cooks ‘97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors (September 3, 2013)
WUWT – 97% Climate consensus ‘denial’: the debunkers debunked (September 9, 2013)
WUWT – Join my crowd-sourced complaint about the ‘97% consensus’ (September 20, 2013)
WUWT – The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey (November 20, 2013)
WUWT – 97% of pictures are worth 1000 climate words (February 26, 2014)
WUWT – John Cook’s 97% consensus claim is about to go ‘pear-shaped’ (May 10, 2014)
WUWT – An Open Letter puts the University of Queensland in a dilemma over John Cook’s ‘97% consensus’ paper (May 22, 2014)
WUWT – The climate consensus is not 97% – it’s 100% (June 11, 2014)
WUWT – The disagreement over what defines ‘endorsment of AGW’ by Cook et al. is revealed in raters remarks, and it sure isn’t a 97% consensus (June 24, 2014)
WUWT – If 97% of Scientists Say Global Warming is Real, 100% Say It Has Nearly Stopped (November 18, 2014)
Compiled by populartechnology.net and reproduced here with permission
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
After writing an article in my economics newsletter in favor of more CO2 in the air, and favoring global warming over global cooling (not that we have a choice), I am certainly a “denier” by Warmunist standards, yet it seems even my views fit into the 97% “club” based on the questions in the survey as I interpreted them!
It appears the 97% were EVERYONE who believed humans had ANY effect on the climate, no matter how SMALL.
.
I’m suspicious of the 3%, who must be certain nothing humans have ever done has had even the slightest effect on the climate. Maybe even too small an effect to measure. That seems unlikely.
.
Almost everyone who doubts a climate catastrophe caused by manmade CO2 is coming … could still be included in the 97%, which has been grossly misinterpreted to mean 97% believe in the climate astrology predictions of the climate computer games.
For me, the suspected human influence on the climate was the dark soot continuously deposited on Arctic ice and snow, mainly from burning coal and wood in the Northern Hemisphere (that’s my best guess for why so much of the global warming is due to “local warming” in the northern half of the Northern Hemisphere, and so little warming has been measured in the southern half of the Southern Hemisphere … but there could be other explanations better than mine — I’m just speculating)
.
But has there been an official retraction from the publisher or are they fully willing to bastardize science for the cause?
Unlikely there will be, as they were unwillingly to allow a critical comment from highly distinguished scientists like Dr. Tol to be published in their own journal. Instead they are content on misleading the public with their propaganda.
Weblogs and media coverage do not count, sorry. Many of these articles are from this site itself. And many were written by individual people, many by the same two or three people. The only three significal articles listed here are the ones from journals at the top. Two of them were written by an economist (note nit a scientist) who actually agrees with apgw theories, just not the predicted results, which indeed do vary. He also promotes a carbon tax.
The third is an more an analysis of consensus itself. It does not show or argue that there is no consensus on apgw, but that there is not consensus on its impacts, which anyone who Actually follows the actual science and not the spin enjoyed so regularly on this site already knows.
Conclusion? Since nothing here actually debunks the 97% consensus on the existence of apgw, this website probably willfully misleading people to believe the myth that apgw is a fraud.
Sorry Jeb, but you are not the arbiter of what “counts”. Only 15 of the articles are from this site. Since when did “articles written by individual people” become an argument to dismiss something?
You do realize that Cook and some of his other co-authors were not scientists either? Almost none of the those who did the abstract ratings were either.
Dr. Tol however, is much more than simply an “economist” but a professor on the economics of climate change, a lead author of the IPCC and did his thesis on the greenhouse effect,
Richard S. J. Tol, M.Sc. Econometrics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1992); Ph.D. Economics (Thesis: “A decision-analytic treatise of the enhanced greenhouse effect“), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1997); Researcher, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1992-2008); Visiting Researcher, Canadian Centre for Climate Research, University of Victoria, Canada (1994); Visiting researcher, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University College London, United Kingdom (1995); Acting Programme Manager Quantitative Environmental Economics, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands (1998-1999); Visiting Associate Professor, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University (1998-2000); Board Member, Centre for Marine and Climate Research, Hamburg University (2000-2006); Lead Author, IPCC (2001, 2013); Contributing Author and Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2001, 2007, 2013); Associate Editor, Environmental and Resource Economics Journal (2001-2006); Adjunct Professor, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University (2000-2008); Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change, Department of Geosciences and Department of Economics, Hamburg University, Germany (2000-2006); Editor, Energy Economics Journal (2003-Present); Visiting Research Scholar, Princeton Environmental Institute and Visiting Professor, Department of Economics, Princeton University (2005-2006); Research Professor, Economic and Social Research Institute, Ireland (2006-2011); Research Fellow, Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP), Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University (2007-2010); Associate Editor, Economics E-Journal (2007-Present); Adjunct Professor, Department of Economics, Trinity College, Ireland (2010-2011); Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Institute for Environmental Studies and Department of Spatial Economics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (2008-Present); Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, University of Sussex, Falmer, United Kingdom (2012-Present)
We are all well aware of Dr. Tol’s position on climate change which is not something you or your fellow alarmists support.
It is makes no sense for anything here to debunk your strawman arguments instead of what they are actually addressing.
So only weblogs like SkepticalScience and RealClimate etc and media such as the BBC, ABC/SBS and CBS count because they support the 97% concensus?
Beetle bug,
Climatologists have re-computed the CS for our planet. It turns out that it is about 0.6°K for a doubling of CO2.
You can go home now and cook some bar-be-que with a clear conscience.
Mr. beetle,
Did you just begin to read about the global warming issue? You really do sound like a noobie. What is “apgw”? And “apgw theories”? Did you just make those up?
I suggest that you try to get up to speed by reading the WUWT archives for a couple months, before dipping your toe in the water here. You will have a much better chance of sounding knowledgeable.
Useful resource for debate. Thanks.
Here’s another weblog discussion:
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2014
A Climate Falsehood You Can Check for Yourself.
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2014/02/a-climate-falsehood-you-can-check-for.html
Bob Clark
Bob, this is discussed in the Liberty Fund link.
beetle says:
Weblogs and media coverage do not count, sorry.
Look up: ‘psychological projection’. Your crowd constantly uses appeals to authority and ‘consensus’ arguments. In science, both are logical fallacies.
And if you actually believe that “nothing here actually debunks the 97% consensus”, you are a hopeless True Believer. Because when it comes to debunked nonsense, your “97%” is right at the top of the list.
see, there is no ‘greenhouse warming signal’ and there are no measurements of AGW. Anything in science can be measured, so long as it is not so minuscule that it’s below the background noise level. If you believe otherwise, then post a verifiable, empirical, testable measurement, specifically quantifying the fraction of AGW out of total global warming.
Run along now back to whatever thinly-trafficked alarmist blog you get your misinformation from. You need some new talking points. I’ll wait here…
” Anything in science can be measured”
…
Can you measure the diameter of an electron?
How long is a piece of string?
No one can , as you well know . The best physical image of an electron is that of a wave packet , so the concept of a finite diameter is meaningless.
So since one cannot measure what does not exist , and you are questioning whether it is possible to measure the anthropogenic CO2 contribution to global warming, are you suggesting that AGW does not exist?
I guess socrates is right. We can’t measure stupidity either, so it’s hard to get a handle on why alarmists continue their losing debate.
But for a rational answer: you can measure temperature. What fraction of the [tiny] temperature rise over the past century is due to AGW?
Without an answer, we’re arguing about the cat hiding under the bed — but when we look… there is no cat.
The man-made global warming scare is a giant head fake, nothing more.
The favorite ref. source of AGW supporters is http://www.skepticalscience.com.
Bob Clark
Skeptical Science home of the cartoonist and the “crusher crew”,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-drown-them-out.html
You are right to question beetle’s assertions .
There are frequent postings on this site , and no doubt on others , to the effect that it is the media that is the key to the general attitude to AGW .
It is through the media that the general public is informed , or misinformed , about climate science .
The majority of legislators in Washington, Brussels and London do not have the background or inclination to read the scientific literature , but rely on the media and advisors, who are invariably motivated by gain or ideology.
The media is the mortar that holds the political structure of AGW together and there seems to be cracks appearing . It is foolish, if you are a committed AGW advocate , to dismiss the media as being a trivial element,
Ah yes, the 97% consensus. Derived by formulating a question AFTER the papers were written to see how many of them fit the answer. No opportunity there for cherry picking….
Which is the ultimate problem with any survey, even well intentioned ones. For example, if you were to ask 100 physicists:
1. Does extra CO2 in the atmosphere cause some amount of warming?
2. Does human activity cause extra CO2 inthe atmosphere?
I doubt that you would get anything less than 100% agreement to both. Now ask one more question:
3. Does the amount of extra CO2 generated by humans cause an amount of warming that should be considered imminently catastrophic?
I doubt you would get anything even approaching consensus on the 3rd question, and the most common answer may well be “I don’t know”. But consensus? Unlikely.
We’ll now proceed with an informal survey where people express their opinions of my three questions, their validity, and demonstrate the impossibility of arriving at a consensus just on that. 3… 2… 1…
Good points, David. If we expanded question 3 a bit and explored the range of possible scenarios between no effect and imminent catastrophe, and then talked about the costs of action and inaction, then we’d be getting somewhere. One of the big frustrations felt by some climate activists is that conversation is (many believe) being deflected and blocked by these arguments over things that don’t move us forward, such as how many “for” or “against” scientists can be fit on the head of a pin.
If we made a scale from 1 – 10, with 1 being no measurable effect from human emissions, and 10 being runaway global warming and climate catastrophe, the needle would be bouncing around “±1”.
I feel real bad about climate activists being frustrated with inaction on attracting adherents to their religious movement.
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/2818/Crichton-Environmentalism-is-a-religion.aspx
Thanks!! Great ammo in the ever-lasting war against the zealots who still believe in the 97% dogma.
By now, every alarmist who has even a slight ability for critical thinking should be aware of the absurdity of the 97% myth. But all the time it is being mindlessly repeated. The media also betray their duty to give correct and balanced information.
There’s an interesting point for this topic which was unfortunately overlooked. I only noticed it a few days ago. It turns out Skeptical Science openly admitted their “consensus” is not 97% back in September of last year.
Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
When will the CO2-believers ever learn that Consensus is a political not a Scientific term….
Ironically the early dead give away that the study was BS , was the very thing that Cook is most proud about. That he matched exactly the 97% claim from an early study , given the odds against this taking into account the various factors, shows that is what he set out to do in the first place . He was just to dum to work out he could have still got a high number but one that would not have made people suspicions .
But he really , really wanted to match the 97 and in true climate ‘science’ fashion , it was facts be dammed .
That the 97% in both studies fails on a basic mathematical level, but is still regarded has unquestionable truth , shows how much this area is dogma rather than fact driven.
It doesn’t matter. These people know they lied but it’s all in the interest of the cause. They created a meme. So effective that when Obama was here in Queensland, talking to children, he ignorantly referred to the ‘research’ that had been carried out there.
No quarter asked, and none given..
Using the CAGW proponents MO:
what we have here is that 100% of the articles refute the 97% contrived consensus.
Or, even better:
100% of Climate Scientists refute the “97% consensus”.
Yes, we skeptics are allowed to cherry pick but scientists are not. Do you realize that it needs only one refutation to invalidate a claim? Essentially we don’t have to list more than one let alone more than what are parroted by the supporters of the claim but friendly people that we are we do it to gain some reputation in the view of not-understanding non-scientists among the readers.
This is being even more honest then Cook because at least all the authors here really do reject the 97% meme.
Would be a good add to the resources tab
And for Cook’s and others studies that say that CO2 is the cause or main cause of AGW, I did lose my adjunct position. Academia is determined to indoctrinate college students. If enough believe…then it is so. Sort of reminds me of the Continental Drift Theory in the 60’s. My geomorphology teacher said that he could lose his job if he taught it (and he did a few years later). But he taught it to us anyways. Good thing…Plate Tectonics soon was the prominent theory.
I’m not so sure. Less than a decade ago I undertook a degree in philosophy of science. Instead of undergoing RPL, I took a course in geology, much of which dealt with climate. The coursebook I was required to use is still in use; I lent it to one of my son’s friends this year. It’s The Changing Earth: Exploring Geology and Evolution, James S. Monroe & Reed Wicander. It has but one passing reference to some believing that CO2 plays a major role in climate. I note that TR Oke’s Boundary Layer Climates contains no references at all. Admittedly it’s dated, but it’s usual for such important pedagogical texts to be updated. Example: Resnick and Halliday’s Fundamentals of Physics that I had in 1969 is still regularly updated.
So far, no warmunist has been able to explain the complete lack of tertiary level teaching matter supporting CAGW, or refer me to a relevant text. CAGW is not AFAICT part of the Received View for those studying climate at the university level.
dbstealey
December 20, 2014 at 10:29 am
I’d pay somebody a hundred bucks to demonstrate that adding a quantity of CO2 to a volume of air of known temperature will produce a measurable increase of temperature of the air sample.
You’re on! My air sample is one litre @ur momisugly -40°C. My CO2 sample is 1,000 litres @ur momisugly 500°C. Easy peasy 🙂
Hey!
Wait a minute… No fair!
Oh, shuckydarn! Foiled again!:-(
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/10/bill-nye-thescienceguy-and-al-gore-not-even-wrong-on-co2-climate-101-experiment-accoding-to-paper-published-in-aip-journal/
I think you’ll find Tyndall’s experiments are repeatable _in the lab_
Putting them into a complex system like the climate is where things start going wrong.
Reality just won’t cooperate, will it?
Direct link to the article: http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html
Thanks!
A more credible “97% consensus” comes from the latest IPCC report when it says …
“… an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (…) reveals that 111 out of 114 realisations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble ….” [WGI contribution, chapter 9, text box 9.2, page 769, and in full Synthesis Report on page SYR-8]
111 of 114 is 97.368%.
ROTFL. You don’t have to ask scientists, just ask their models. That’s by far more credible.
actually ONE article (two are rejoinders) that could be considered scientific and lacks any rebuttle/argument that typically occurs in the peer review process.
The rest if I’m not correct are highly reputable *cough* news articles and blogs. Way to go to convincingly win THAT argument!
Dave, this is completely incorrect there are 97 articles. “Articles” are not something that simply appears in a journal. I have no idea what you mean “could be considered scientific”, if the three journal articles cannot be considered scientific than neither can any of the “97% consensus” papers. All three journal articles are rebuttals/arguments following standard peer-review protocols.
If you do not believe news articles and blogs have valid points then I suggest you stop reading them.
There are actually 10 journal articles refuting the “97% consensus”,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html
LMAO, did they really link to Internet forums as sources? Link in this sentence: “Though Shaviv also admitted that Cook et al. correctly classified his abstracts based on their content”. What an embarrassment, that is amateur hour.
The other “97% Consensus” studies are refuted by peer-review here,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html
What specific nonsense from that post do you want addressed?