The question here is whether that 97% accept that humans are the main cause of global warming, which is arguably not supported by the evidence presented in the

The question here is whether that 97% accept that humans are the main cause of global warming, which is arguably not supported by the evidence presented in the Cook paper. To quote Friedman in a follow-up post: > My objection was that the 97% figure lumped together categories 1-3, when only category 1 fitted Cook's "main cause." Categories 2 and 3 were papers saying or implying that human action was a cause—"contributed to" in the language of the example. Category 1 contained 64 papers, or 1.6%, not 97%.[0] Which does not mean that there isn't a large consensus that humans are the primary cause of global warming. What we can infer is: 1. The Cook paper is not evidence of that consensus 2. That Cook himself is perhaps not a reliable source. [0]https://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2014/03/john-cooks-response-to-my-criticism.html https://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2014/03/john-cooks-respo...