The claim that "97% of scientists agree 'man made global warming' exists" is a lie.

Con has forfited the round. My argument stands, Vote Pro. Con has forfited the round. My argument stands, Vote Pro. --------------------------------Further, I wanted to include some peer-review against cook's paper.Climate Consensus and 'Misinformation': A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change (PDF) [Archive](Science & Education, pp. 1-20, August 2013)- David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of BrenchleyAbstract: Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate 'misinformation' was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis(PDF) [Archive](Energy Policy, Volume 73, pp. 701-705, October 2014)- Richard S. J. TolAbstract: A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook's validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder(PDF) [Archive](Energy Policy, Volume 73, pp. 709, October 2014)- Richard S. J. TolAbstract: In my critique of Cook et al. (2013), I raised a number of issues (Tol, 2014). Cook et al. (2014) respond to a few only. They do not dispute(1) that their sample is not representative,(2) that data quality is low,(3) that their validation test is not passed,(4) that they mistake a trend in composition for a trend in endorsement,(5) that the majority of the investigated papers that take a position on (anthropogenic) climate change in fact do not examine any evidence, and(6) that there are inexplicable patterns in the data.Comment on 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' (PDF) [Archive](Environmental Research Letters, Volume 10, Number 3, March 2015)- Benjamin John Floyd DeanAbstract: I read the study by Cook et al with great interest [1]. The study used levels of endorsement of global warming as outlined in their table 2; however, I could see no mention as to how these levels were created and how reliable they were in terms of both inter-rater and intra-rater reliability (Cohen's kappa). Best practice on rater reliability indicates that both inter-rater and intra-rater should have been measured and documented in a study such as Dr Cook's [2] and I am surprised that this fact appears to have been neglected. It would be of considerable benefit to readers for some robust rate reliability metrics to be included, if at all possible.