And yet, when those same groups (Obama, Bill Nye, Leo DiCaprio, Al Gore, MSNBC, CNN, Weather Channel, etc.) support AGW you can't get enough of them. In any case, you can't get 97% global consensus from a limited number of papers and limited number of authors. Some of those authors stated for the record that Cook misrepresented their data, and those individuals are equally dismissed even though they were part of Cooks original letter. 

If you go to Cooks letter (link provided in my first post), look at table 3, it pretty well spells out how he got 97%.  It is not from the total or abstracts, it's a sub group. Cook used "grade-school arithmetic" to arrive at 97%, and yes 33 is 97% of 34. Problem is, it's a misrepresented and often cited number that's suppose to carry weight.

A catastrophic event just hasn't born out over nearly 100 years of predictions based on models. That's basically the model of failure ...... which is good.

The benefits of fossil fuels outweigh their risks.