The articles I read claiming the 97% consensus are really bad science. One (Anderegg) was a questionnaire sent to scientists with three very generic questions. IIRC, a number of scientists didn&#x27;t reply, and the 97% figure even comes from ignoring those who replied two the first two questions but not the third one.<p>The other (Cook et al. 2013) takes incredibly generic mentions of climate change in papers&#x27; abstracts to infer a consensus (stuff like: &quot;co2, a major responsible if climate change, also plays an important role in (something completely different).&quot; Turns out that a lot of times scientists mention climate change in their abstracts as pure click bait.