Presumably because the debate is seen to be peripheral, and hasn't changed the view of the 97%.
The debate is seen as peripheral by those absolutely convinced of CAGW. Which isn't 97% of all scientists. It's not even 97% of all those who are actual climate scientists, of whom (comparatively) there aren't that many. It's been done to death, but Cook's paper, which he speaks briefly about in the video below, is nonsense:
The comments to the video pick up on this, but
a very succinct summary (only one summary amongst many on the Web) of the Cook paper has this to say:
John Cook — a climate alarmist who first claimed that there was a consensus of 97% of scientists regarding anthropogenic global warming (AGW) — originally examined 11,944 abstracts on climate.
In fact, however, only 64 claimed explicitly that humans are the main cause of global warming.
The 11,944 abstracts break down as follows:
- 64 explicitly endorse the idea that more than 50% of global warming is manmade;
- 922 explicitly endorse the idea that there is global warming but refrain from any claim that it is predominantly manmade;
- 2,910 implicitly endorse the notion of manmade global warming but make no claim regarding humans’ contribution vs. natural contributions (e.g., solar minima/maxima, and ocean events such as El Nino and La Nina);
- 7,970 take no position at all regarding global warming, natural or manmade;
- 15 reject or minimize manmade global warming but proffer no percentage of change from natural or manmade causes;
- 9 explicitly reject or minimize AGW as being less than 50% of global warming.
IOP’s list of abstracts are here:
Thus, 64/11,944 = 0.5% of the abstracts take that view that humans are the “main cause” (i.e., over 50%) of global warming. That number, however, includes *all* abstracts, including those that took no position on the issue at all. John Cook commingled the abstracts that took no position at all with those who believed global warming was uncertain or undefined. It would be nice to segregate those two groups but we would need the original data set of abstracts for that. Instead, we can generously assume that all 7,970 in category 4 really have not expressed any view at all on the issue. If so, then subtracting those from the original data set of 11,944 leaves a difference of:
11,944
- 7,970
= 3,974 (who have expressed a view on the issue)
Thus, the 64 abstracts out of that 3,974 — the 64 claiming that human activity causes over 50% of global warming — is equal to:
64/3,974 = 1.6%
The “97%” figure mentioned by Cook, et al., as a “consensus” — including the recap of Cook’s data in the Institute of Physics article linked above — is nothing but a public-relations ploy.
And yet, here you are continuing to parrot the 97% figure as if it were a solid fact. Why? My guess is that, having made up your mind already that CAGW is real, that predisposes you to accept any "evidence", however ill-founded, that bolsters your opinion. And it also explains why sceptics like myself despair of trying to get proponents of CAGW to at least
consider counter-evidence. You apparently aren't willing, for instance, to view an 80-minute video -- how about this 13-minute one, then, which I've posted before:
Possibly, you'll dismiss it; maybe Stefan Molyneux's political views don't entirely agree with yours. I know a number of his views don't agree with mine. The video below of his is one particularly exercises me because it contains elements I agree with and elements I disagree with. But I'll give him this: he's worth watching because, agree or disagree, he's interesting, and in some things, imo, he's probably right.
How about this one of his, again relating to climate change?:
I've chosen to focus on Stefan because he's an example of someone whose views both attract and repel me. I find some of what he says very uncomfortable, but he often has fair points to make and I don't believe he can be dismissed out of hand. He makes me think; he challenges me; and he has a perfect right to say what he says even when it discombobulates me. For me, this exemplifies the sceptical approach to dealing with the world: what is most important is the truth, however disconcerting it might be. We need to challenge our most dearly-held opinions and see if the other guy might have at least
something valid to say.
That said, we don't
know the truth, about
anything, really. I see from another thread that you're an NDE believer, contra the apparent Western consensus, whilst with CAGW you go with the apparent Western consensus (whether or not that consensus is actually real). In one area, you're a conventionalist, and in another, an unconventionalist. And what marks out a conventionalist? I'd say it's the propensity to go with the herd, or at least with what one believes is the herd. If you weren't a conventionalist about CAGW, you'd have researched John Cook's paper, or at least reviewed what others on the other side had to say about it, and been prepared to at least consider whether his 97% figure was bogus.
The fact that you don't appear to have been so prepared is what tells me that you aren't entirely serious in your dedication to the truth concerning CAGW. Whether or not there's an apparent consensus about it, I think you owe it to yourself to consider the possibility that you could be wrong.
As to LS and my surprise that I haven't been able to find confirmation of his opinion that soon everything will change, you shouldn't take that to mean that I have rejected that view. We could have to await the next IPCC release to see what it says. My guess is they will find some way, if not to dismiss the influence of solar radiation/cosmic rays, at least to try to minimise it.
The effect of admitting they have been wrong would be to cast even more doubt than currently exists on modern "science" and its pseudo-religious concern with consensus. There could come a time of backlash -- even from those who currently support certain aspects of science without question. And in any case, if we go into another cold period in the near future, there'll be a lot of explaining to do. Cold is a whole lot more dangerous than warmth.