New Study: Majority of Climate Scientists Don’t Agree with ‘Consensus’

climate tipping point aheadNearly six in ten climate scientists don’t adhere to the so-called “consensus” on man-made climate change, a new study by the Dutch government has found. The results contradict the oft-cited claim that there is a 97 percent consensus amongst climate scientists that humans are responsible for global warming.

The study, by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, a government body, invited 6550 scientists working in climate related fields, including climate physics, climate impact, and mitigation, to take part in a survey on their views of climate science.

Of the 1868 who responded, just 43 percent agreed with the IPCC that “It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of [global warming] from 1951 to 2010 was caused by [human activity]”. Even with the “don’t knows” removed that figure increases only to 47 percent, still leaving a majority of climate scientists who do not subscribe to the IPCC’s statement.

The findings directly contradict the claim that 97 percent of climate scientists endorse the view that humans are responsible for global warming, as first made by Cook et al in a paper published in Environment Research Letters.

Cook’s paper has since been extremely widely debunked, yet so ingrained has the 97 percent consensus claim become that The Guardian has an entire section named after it, and President Obama has cited it on Twitter.

Commenting on the new study, Australian climate blogger Joanne Nova said: “Finally there is a decent survey on the topic, and it shows that less than half of what we would call “climate scientists” who research the topic and for the most part, publish in the peer reviewed literature, would agree with the IPCC’s main conclusions. Only 43% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “97%” certainty.”

The authors of the study warn that climate sceptics may be slightly over-represented, given the small pool of responses. But as the scientists invited to participate were picked for having published work that included the phrases “global warming” or “global climate change”, Nova counters that, to the contrary, they are likely to be under-represented.

“Given that sceptics get sacked, rarely get grants to research, and find it harder to get published, they are under-represented in every way in the “certified” pool of publishing climate scientists. Sceptical scientists, I dare say, would be much less likely to use the keyword phrase “global warming” in the papers they do publish. I imagine it’s easier to get papers published that don’t specifically poke the mainstream buttons,” she noted.

However, mounting evidence against climate change theory and the ‘consensus’ is unlikely to stem the tide of policy designed to combat global warming, thanks to the sheer size of the climate change industry that has built up over the last few decades.

New estimates published by the Climate Change Business Journal put the total size of the industry at $1.5 trillion a year, or $4 billion a day, equivalent to the size of the global online retail market. The figure includes carbon markets, carbon consulting, biofuels, carbon sequestration, renewable technologies, eco buildings and hybrid cars.

The climate change consultancy market alone is worth $1.9 billion worldwide; $670 million in the United States, thanks to businesses need to keep on top of climate policy. And these figures are expected to more than double by 2020.

“Most industries this size exist because they produce something the market wants,” commented Nova. “They worry that competitors might chip into their market share, but they don’t worry that the market might disappear overnight. Normal industries fear that a “bad” political outcome might reduce profits by ten or twenty percent, and sometimes they donate “both ways”. But the climate industry has literally a trillion on the table that depends on big-government policy and election outcomes.

“So while The Guardian worries about the dark and evil influence of the fossil fuels industry they don’t seem at all concerned about the vested-monster-in-the-kitchen, the 1.5 Trillion Climate Industry. Ditto for the intrepid souls at the ABC/BBC/CBC who think they speak truth to power, but miss the most powerful lobby in the climate debate.”

Source

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (28)

  • Avatar

    Mike Cross

    |

    The main problem with this survey is that the response was so poor only 28% of the 6550 approached responded. Was it a strictly confidential survey?, if not, many wouldn’t risk responding. The result is like our elections where respect/interest in for democracy is so low that 60-70% don’t vote

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    [quote name=”Me”]No God needed, BS is BS, Period…..[/quote]
    Yes Me, we know you’re an atheist, and we all remain really impressed…

    • Avatar

      Me

      |

      You’re welcome! 😀 😆 😉

      • Avatar

        Me

        |

        I’d like to trust things I can see, even then you can’t trust that because people do things to manipulate, but nothing is as stupid as believeing in something that is made up and imaginatory as god. All powerfull, sees all and will judge you, if that is the case why is there a devil? The stupid prick can’t even get that right. Why, because it’s made up by people to control others. Evil is people takeing advantage of others nothing more.

        • Avatar

          Me

          |

          I think you don’t even believe in all that crap written in the Bibleeeee! 😆

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            or are you going to evolve and create a new new testament. Ya know to get rid of the things you don’t like. The things people do to control others!

          • Avatar

            GR82DRV

            |

            Contrarianism is thought by some to impart immediate credibility and indicate intellect otherwise not demonstrated by one’s actions. That’s all I’ve ever seen from your posts – superiority and arrogance simply because you don’t believe in a higher power than yourself. Big deal. Frankly, nobody here [i]cares[/i] if you’re an atheist – more power to ya! I can respect an atheist if that”s what he/she truly [i]believes[/i]… Just don’t expect me to be automatically impressed by your superior intellect because of [i]your[/i] belief system. The rest of us here don’t constantly call “B.S.” on atheism like you do toward faith in a higher power. If nothing else, it gets old and tiresome.

            Try a little respect – it has nothing to do with faith.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            It’s funny how you throw that belief back at athiest, belief is what you do. But you can’t get past that con now can ya! 😆

        • Avatar

          GR82DRV

          |

          [i]Your[/i] comprehension and assumptions of [i]my[/i] faith is like a bad cartoon. It is childish and incredibly inaccurate. How can you possibly know what I believe? What arrogance!

          Your poor language, use of invective, and incoherence appears juvenile at best, and seems to hint at someone who feels intellectually threatened by people of faith. What is it that you are [i]really[/i] afraid of? A person who is truly confident in his choice of atheism doesn’t feel compelled to evangelize (for nothing) or trash others who believe differently…

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            You are a believer, that says it all. 😀

          • Avatar

            GR82DRV

            |

            [quote name=”Me”]You are a believer, that says it all. :D[/quote]
            Thank you! I’ll accept that.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Yeah, you know it and so do I, that is the fact, not a belief.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            What is all this talk about G-d crap ?

            This site is about GHE primarily and all the idiocy the left wants to infer from that, even though there is no GHE as proposed by them.

            I ask you all to get back on topic.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Yeah like you don’t know how this AGW crap hasn’t been compaired to religion, and how long has that crap festered. No wonder the AGW fear crap has continued, because the two are based in fear mongering. So who has steped up to the plate recently, the pope, but there were more than him before that. Bit he is the big Human guy that has the faith and followers until he doesn’t.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            The enemy are the self-righteous leftist pigs. Just because they are an imitation of religious nonsense is immaterial.

            If you want to establish a thesis for irreligion it will be immaterial to the purpose of this site and only feeding ammunition to the alarmist pigs.

          • Avatar

            GR82DRV

            |

            My point is that science is not built of faith and faith is not built of science. [i]Both[/i] religion and science lose when either is used to justify or deny the other. It is laughable on so many levels that the Marxist left would now attempt to leverage religion in what they proclaim as a scientific issue.

            Trying to use science to verify or support religious faith is absurd since true faith ultimately requires a voluntary “leap” beyond the plane of pure scientific logic; [i]”the peace of God, which passes all understanding..”[/i]. Nobody is ever brought to faith by some scientific algorithm, yet many brilliant scientists accept God for reasons they could never fully explain.

            [i] Religion[/i] then, is part of the necessary but [i]man-made[/i], attempt to put one’s individual faith into community action. As such, when well conceived and well practiced, religion is capable of providing great comfort and accomplishment, yet when it is compromised it is also capable of causing terrible harm. Failure of people of faith to reconcile the differences between personal faith and man-made religious dogma is an ongoing tragedy of our time.

            Likewise, using (or abusing) religious faith to justify bad science, as with Pope Francis’ recent decrees, or the establishment of a quasi-religious approach to science, as led by Pope Algore threaten the advancement this important discipline as never before. In real science, “leaps of faith” are not supported in good practice. Real science needs not – and should not – use religious practice models.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Bottom line is you still believe in an imaginary thing.

          • Avatar

            GR82DRV

            |

            Essentially you’re stuck in the continuous loop of trying to comprehend faith through logic and science. That will never work. You need to take a much wider view, which is often difficult. As much as I love science and apply it daily to my clinical work, I know that scientific reason cannot explain what is at the core of faith. Maybe the best analogy is trying to explain the third dimension to a being who’s only existence is defined by a single two dimensional plane…

            I accept that some people never sense or acknowledge anything beyond the tangible effects of science and logic in their own lives. They can, for instance, look into the eyes of their newborn child and see nothing but a well organized collection of cells functioning nominally. However, many others sense and even “know” there is incredibly much more – and that crosses into faith.

            It’s a bit like the tree that falls in the woods, just because [i]you[/i] weren’t there to witness it, that doesn’t mean it made no sound. I can accept that you may speak honestly from your own experience, but that does not automatically project truth into the experiences of others.

            Beyond that, I’ll try no more. I accept my atheist friends (I have several), and I never yell “B.S.” at them because it’s insulting and pointless. They’re all decent people and they reciprocate for the same reason. We simply disagree.

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            A lot of prestige with that one and power too, and you know the last one money.

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    Drewey, you toss around the term skeptic as if it were a pejorative term. Anyone who understands the principles and history of science knows that skeptics are exalted by scientific history and play a critical role in advancing and protecting the cause.

    On the other hand, “skeptics” and “deniers” being used as a pejorative, fit perfectly within the realm of religious zealotry or political manipulation and tyranny – those who refuse to be sheared like compliant sheep drawing the wrath.

    No scientist should be afraid that others question his findings or belief system. When the facts and data on hand continue to fail at supporting a particular hypothesis, most true scientists move on to another, or at least they work harder to find their error. Zealots and politicians by comparison, make threats and hurl invective when threatened by the truth.

    I’ll post this again for your edification:

    [i]”Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

    There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”[/i]

    -Michael Crichton

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    Hey comrade drew Lying lie ski! What kind of software are you using to get past the IP bans?

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Mike Cross, a response rate of 28% to a survey is actually very good especially when considering over 6500 scientists were asked for their opinions .
    The article doesn’t explain all the details ie . was it mail out ,confidential .and how many scientist would be barred from replying due to employment conditions etc .

    The Cook “survey ” was more like reading papers and interpreting
    the authors view or cherry picking what they have said . In other words information from already pre screened and filtered information
    that could do nothing else but produce the results sought .

    Considering the $$ Trillions of dollars being spent wouldn’t it be prudent to do more than just survey pro global warming papers ?

    Wouldn’t the care takers of the public interest (politicians ) automatically require this be done especially now that they all now claim they are not scientist as the scam gets more and more exposed .

    So who are those scientists that claim the earth has a fever and that humans are the cause vs those scientists who acknowledge humans have some impact but natural occurring variables influencing climate are still the main variables ?

    Unless we can accurately model the effects caused by the sun, clouds ,ocean currents ,and winds etc . how can anyone honestly say CO2, a gas essential to life on earth , representing a fraction of 1 % of the earth’s atmosphere, is the big heavy driving the earth climate . Prove it and have it peer reviewed or you are using a cloak of scientific trust to mislead people all over the world .

    The lie is so big ,and the scientific knowledge so thin by most of the population who put their trust in scientists .
    Those people with a predisposition to join cults have something they can happily comply with. The real deniers are those that can’t change when the facts do .
    Most scientists that actually practice the scientific method know what’s going on.
    More than half the scientists replying to the PBL Netherlands survey have not supported the IPCC opinion about a settled science conscientious . The science is not even close to being settled and propaganda otherwise is a manufactured lie to sell a scam .

    The people perpetuating and promoting the outright fraud should be criminally charged.
    The politicians should quit hiding behind an illusion they know is false in order to sell more taxes and transfer powers to the UN .

    The politicians are fools if they think China and a number of other countries are ever going to hand over parts of their sovereignty to Club of Rome representatives .

    One would think scientists

    • Avatar

      Me

      |

      Nicely said Amber, and Bravo Zulu! 🙂

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    On a side note, I missed what coolwhip said, since GR82 and Andy or is it Adam had made a comment to that, that I briefly saw on the side. What did he say this time?

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |

      That he said anything was enough, his usual offensive sCeptic screed. :zzz

      The opposite of a skeptic is a true believer I suppose. Branch Carbonian all the way.

      • Avatar

        Me

        |

        😀 Yeah, it’s always too funny when he shows up. Fun times!

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    I am asking ALL of you to get off the religion vs. science crap because you are going nowhere and feeding the enemies of reason who promote the GHE crap.

    Enough is enough and why not wake up that the argumentation of your feelings of deism are going nowhere.

    If you need the self-gratification of your argumentation why don’t you seek it elsewhere where some who think as you do will be gratified ?

  • Avatar

    Chris Pearce

    |

    I’m afraid this article is nonsense and is misleading. According to the study, 66% of the scientists say that more than half of global warming has been AGW since mid last century (rising to about 80% for the more prolific writers). A further 12% say there has been some effect. Another 19% couldn’t or didn’t want to put a figure on it. Now 66+12+19=97%. Only 0.4% said there has been no warming. Yet there are many denier articles claiming no warming. Where do they get this rubbish from? Temperature data ‘corruption’ stories, I suppose.

Comments are closed

No Trackbacks.