“Confirmation bias” is something that is designed to be excluded from well-designed studies and surveys. Peer-reviewed studies are checked for (among other errors) possible confirmation bias. If it’s noted, the studies won’t be accepted because information won’t be reliable.
If you want to know where the broadly thrown about numbers come from:
A survey of paper abstracts from climate scientists worldwide was published in the May 15, 2013 journal Environmental Research Letters. That survey looked at about 12,000 studies published between 1991–2011. The survey did find “consensus” which ACTUALLY means “agreement of independent research”. Typically people shorthand the survey results giving only one number (97%), and maybe they shouldn’t. Here are the actual numbers (AGW =anthropogenic global warming) :
“We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.” (Note: “expressed no position” doesn’t mean that the “scientist has no position” it means the paper itself was not in any way related to climate change due to AGW - other things do affect our climate. They were looking for the largest possible group of papers that might deal with the subject.)
The 97% is what is most often quoted, but reflects a part of the whole, with 31.7% of scientists in Part One of the survey responding positively with an endorsement for AGW. 66.4% were neutral, with no claim. It’s only 0.7% who rejected and 0.3% who were uncertain. The 97% is actually “% among abstracts with AGW position” (Table 3 Results Part One).
So they did find a 97% consensus among scientists willing to make a claim. When they gave the scientists who had fallen into the neutral or uncertain category a chance to review their own papers, only a portion of them (under a third) did. That’s partially because not all the papers had anything to do with the subject. Even so, the consensus grew to 98.4% (Part Two).
The study was fully honest about their findings, and about what information they were referencing. “Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.” Popular media has shorthanded it thus changing the meaning of the results.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
So, you’re blaming science for finding good information, and trying to report it accurately to a population that enjoys being spoon fed single bits of “easily understood” data. The survey report is published, available online, and anyone can can go read it - it doesn’t even require a subscription, and it’s really short. So for people to have bad information about this really is their own fault. If you bother to visit the link I recommend you view video abstract, because it fully explains in common language just what the study showed.
97% of climate scientists expressing a position, endorse an existing scientific consensus for AGW.
