The 97% figure is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...ific_consensus
Emphasis mine.
Sorry, but I can't take anything that Roy Spencer says seriously, after reading these gems of his:
If he's an expert in anything, it's self-delusion.
A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analysed "1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers".
Sorry, but I can't take anything that Roy Spencer says seriously, after reading these gems of his:
Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting
I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.
I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world.
Comment