97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus”

The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,

The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science.

Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.

[ Journal Coverage ]

Energy PolicyQuantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (PDF) (October 2014)
Energy PolicyQuantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder (PDF) (October 2014)
Science & EducationClimate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change (PDF) (August 2013)

[ Media Coverage ]

American ThinkerClimate Consensus Con Game (February 17, 2014)
BreitbartObama’s ’97 Percent’ Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart (September 8, 2014)
Canada Free PressSorry, global warmists: The ’97 percent consensus’ is complete fiction (May 27, 2014)
Financial PostMeaningless consensus on climate change (September 19, 2013)
Financial PostThe 97%: No you don’t have a climate consensus (September 25, 2013)
ForbesGlobal Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims (May 30, 2013)
Fox NewsBalance is not bias — Fox News critics mislead public on climate change (October 16, 2013)
Herald SunThat 97 per cent claim: four problems with Cook and Obama (May 22, 2013)
Power LineBreaking: The “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard (May 18, 2014)
SpikedGlobal warming: the 97% fallacy (May 28, 2014)
The Daily CallerWhere Did ’97 Percent’ Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From? (May 16, 2014)
The Daily Telegraph97 per cent of climate activists in the pay of Big Oil shock! (July 23, 2013)
The GuardianThe claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up (June 6, 2014)
The New AmericanGlobal Warming “Consensus”: Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013)
The New AmericanCooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW” Debunked (June 5, 2013)
The New AmericanClimategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% “Consensus” Fraud (May 20, 2014)
The Patriot PostThe 97% Consensus — A Lie of Epic Proportions (May 17, 2013)
The Patriot PostDebunking the ‘97% Consensus’ & Why Global Cooling May Loom (August 7, 2014)
The Press-EnterpriseDon’t be swayed by climate change ‘consensus’ (September 10, 2013)
The Tampa TribuneAbout that ’97 percent’: It ain’t necessarily so (May 19, 2014)
The Wall Street JournalThe Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’ (May 26, 2014)
Troy MediaBandwagon psychology root of 97 per cent climate change “consensus” (February 18, 2014)
WNDBlack Jesus’ Climate Consensus Fantasy (June 25, 2013)

[ Organization Coverage ]

Competitive Enterprise InstituteConsensus Shmensus (September 5, 2013)
Cornwall AllianceClimate Consensus? Nonsense! (June 16, 2014)
Friends of ScienceFriends of Science Challenge the Cook Study for Bandwagon Fear Mongering on Climate Change and Global Warming (May 21, 2013)
Friends of ScienceOnly 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus (May 28, 2013)
Friends of Science97% Consensus? No! Global Warming Math Myths & Social Proofs (PDF) (February 3, 2014)
Friends of ScienceClimate Change Is a Fact of Life, the Science Is Not Settled and 97% Consensus on Global Warming Is a Math Myth (February 4, 2014)
George C. Marshall InstituteThe Corruption of Science (October 5, 2014)
John Locke FoundationThe 97% consensus on global warming exposed (July 3, 2014)
Liberty FundDavid Friedman on the 97% Consensus on Global Warming (February 27, 2014)
Global Warming Policy FoundationConsensus? What Consensus? (PDF) (September 2, 2013)
Global Warming Policy FoundationFraud, Bias And Public Relations: The 97% ‘Consensus’ And Its Critics (PDF) (September 8, 2014)
National Center for Policy AnalysisThe Big Lie of the “Consensus View” on Global Warming (July 30, 2014)
National Center for Public Policy ResearchDo 97% of All Climate Scientists Really Believe Mankind is Causing Catastrophic Global Warming? (February 10, 2014)
Principia Scientific InternationalExposed: Academic Fraud in New Climate Science Consensus Claim (May 23, 2013)
The Heartland InstituteWhat 97 Percent of Climate Scientists Do (May 12, 2014)

[ Weblog Coverage ]

Australian Climate Madness‘Get at the truth, and not fool yourself’ (May 29, 2014)
Bishop Hill‘Landmark consensus study’ is incomplete (May 27, 2013)
Climate AuditUnderCooked Statistics (May 24, 2013)
Climate Etc. (Judith Curry Ph.D.) – The 97% ‘consensus’ (July 26, 2013)
Climate Etc. (Judith Curry Ph.D.) – The 97% ‘consensus’: Part II (July 27, 2013)
Climate Etc. (Judith Curry Ph.D.) – The 97% feud (July 27, 2014)
Climate ResistanceTom Curtis Doesn’t Understand the 97% Paper (July 27, 2013)
JoNovaCook’s fallacy “97% consensus” study is a marketing ploy some journalists will fall for (May 17, 2013)
JoNovaThat’s a 0.3% consensus, not 97% (July 1, 2013)
JoNova“Honey, I shrunk the consensus” – Monckton takes action on Cooks paper (September 24, 2013)
JoNovaJohn Cook’s consensus data is so good his Uni will sue you if you discuss it (May 18, 2014)
JoNovaUni Queensland defends legal threats over “climate” data they want to keep secret (May 21, 2014)
JoNovaCook scores 97% for incompetence on a meaningless consensus (June 6, 2014)
José Duarte (Ph.D.) РCooking stove use, housing associations, white males, and the 97% (August 28, 2014)
José Duarte (Ph.D.) РThe art of evasion (September 9, 2014)
Making Science PublicWhat’s behind the battle of received wisdoms? (July 23, 2013)
Popular Technology.net97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists’ Papers, according to the scientists that published them (May 21, 2013)
Popular Technology.netThe Statistical Destruction of the 97% Consensus (June 1, 2013)
Popular Technology.netCook’s 97% Consensus Study Game Plan Revealed (June 4, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – The Consensus Project: An update (August 16, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Biases in consensus data (August 24, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – More irregularities in the consensus data (August 24, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Open letter to the Vice-chancellor of the University of Queensland (August 27, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Bootstrap results for initial ratings by the Consensus Project (August 28, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – The 97% consensus (May 10, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – My First Audioslide (May 20, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – A new contribution to the consensus debate (June 4, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – 24 errors? (June 8, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – More Cook data released (July 21, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Days of rater bias (July 23, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Days of rater bias (ctd) July 28, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Another chapter on the 97% nonsensus (August 1, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – ERL does not want you to read this (October 14, 2014)
The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) – I Do Not Think it Means What You Think it Means (May 15, 2013)
The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) – On the Consensus (May 17, 2013)
The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) – Nir Shaviv: One of the 97% (May 17, 2013)
The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) – Why Symmetry is Bad (May 19, 2013)
The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) – Possible Self-Selection Bias in Cook: Author responses. (May 20, 2013)
The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) – Bias Author Survey: Pro AGW (May 21, 2013)
The LidClaim 97% of Climate Scientists Believe In Global Warming is TOTALLY BOGUS! (May 21, 2014)
The State of the ClimateCook’s survey not only meaningless but also misleading (May 17, 2013)
WUWTThe Collapsing ‘Consensus’ (May 22, 2013)
WUWTSelf-admitted cyber thief Peter Gleick is still on the IOP board that approved the Cook 97% consensus paper (June 4, 2013)
WUWT‘Quantifying the consensus on global warming in the literature’: a comment (June 24, 2013)
WUWTOn the 97 percenters: ‘You Must Admit, They Were Careful’ (July 28, 2013)
WUWTWhat Is Cook’s Consensus? (July 29, 2013)
WUWTCooks ‘97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors (September 3, 2013)
WUWT97% Climate consensus ‘denial’: the debunkers debunked (September 9, 2013)
WUWTJoin my crowd-sourced complaint about the ‘97% consensus’ (September 20, 2013)
WUWTThe 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey (November 20, 2013)
WUWT97% of pictures are worth 1000 climate words (February 26, 2014)
WUWTJohn Cook’s 97% consensus claim is about to go ‘pear-shaped’ (May 10, 2014)
WUWTAn Open Letter puts the University of Queensland in a dilemma over John Cook’s ‘97% consensus’ paper (May 22, 2014)
WUWTThe climate consensus is not 97% ‚Äì it’s 100% (June 11, 2014)
WUWTThe disagreement over what defines ‘endorsement of AGW’ by Cook et al. is revealed in raters remarks, and it sure isn’t a 97% consensus (June 24, 2014)
WUWTIf 97% of Scientists Say Global Warming is Real, 100% Say It Has Nearly Stopped (November 18, 2014)

Rebuttals to Criticisms:

Criticism: Tol (2014) was rejected by other journals for being flawed.

Rebuttal: Dr. Tol’s paper was censored by Environmental Research Letters (ERL), which conveniently has multiple alarmists scientists on its editorial board (e.g. Peter Gleick and Stefan Rahmstorf) and rejected by two other journals for being “out of scope” (off topic) not flawed.

Criticism: Tol (2014) has 24 errors in it.

Rebuttal: Dr. Tol refuted all of these claims in a post online and in his published rejoinder.


View Comments (29)

  • The 97% figure doesn't mean much standing alone. Lets accept as true that 97% in man made GW. What percent think its catastrophic change. What percent think it is minor change. How many think its too expensive to fix. How many think the changes will be for the better? (warmer planet better for all life). It is ultimately the bell curve that I would like to see.

  • So let's accept for the moment that the lie of global warming is true, anyone remember 30 yrs ago when the same nut cases pushed an ice age coming and then 10 yrs later changed to warming and now it's climate change. Note to all who read this: the climate is always changing since the planet formed, was it humans that started the last ice age after all Fred and Barney had a stone age car or maybe it was dino blowing gas out of his ; well you know!

    • Those "nut cases" are the people who revise their findings in the face of evidence. It's called "science" and "the scientific method". It doesn't stick to old precepts in the face of new evidence. Unlike the deniers.

      • So why are the nutcases not revising their failed hypothesis in the light of new evidence? Why do ghe nutcases deny natural climate change? The only science deniers are those that deny that natural variability can explain every global climate change we have witnessed.

        Leftists can easily be identified by their prerequisite psychological projection. Science deniers are those who reject skepticism and the natural world around us.

  • I hope you all remember your moronic denial of this current event when half of the coastal cities are flooded.

    • According to Al Gore? Or the IPCC? The IPCC doesn't even make that sort of nonesense claim. Do some fact checking.

    • Mr Brown, your breathless and meaningless taunt has zero basis in reality. Sea levels are not rising any faster than they have since the end of the LIA. You alarmists are the worst sort of science and nature deniers, always acting out the age old belief that man causes weather and should therefore make sacrifices to appease Gaia.

      Feel free to comment again when you have something relevant to the real world to discuss.

  • So sad to recognize that even when alarmist claims are debunked, skewed data exposed, and dire predictions of rising sea levels, and disappearing polar bears failing to materialize, there are still those who are determined to believe in "catastrophic man-made climate change (formerly global warming). They have bought into all the lies and hype produced by those who stand to profit mightily by sucking the teat of research dollars from the stupid governments of the world, allegedly searching for a way or ways to stop/minimize the 'disastrous' events that are predicted to occur because of preventable climate change. I wonder how many of those dollars get siphoned off by the politicos who approve the grants that fuel this nonsense, let alone the 'researchers' and 'climate evangelists' (think Al Gore) who gleefully take the money thrown at them. No wonder they fight so hard to deny the truth and marginalize those who recognize it. No wonder many real scientists confess to their closest friends that they are forced to 'go along or be ejected from the fraternity of fellow scientists and any hope of grant monies'. The 97 articles above just proves how desperate they are to make the world believe in AGW. These aren't the first misrepresentations and skewing of data that has come down the pike either. Some folks just seem to need a crises to fight. As if we didn't already have enough REAL threats to our survival to deal with.

    • Hi,
      Just curious. What exactly is the motivation for perpetuating the hoax? From my perspective I woyld venture that it would be more profitable to hitch a ride on the "drill baby drill" train. Is there really that much money in the alternative energy market? Or is money not the motivator here? Thanks.

      • "They have bought into all the lies and hype produced by those who stand to profit mightily by sucking the teat of research dollars from the stupid governments of the world, "

        So, on one hand there's money, and on the other there's political power. Learn to read.

      • There is a lot of money in drilling, you are right. But to access it you must have the capital to invest in drilling equipment, R&D, exploration, etc.
        For a scientist that capital is not available, but the entity that consumes a third of our 17 trillion dollar GDP routinely gives away fortunes in research grants as long as it supports what you are researching. Make sense now?

  • Hi,
    Just curious. What is the motivation behind those promoting this hoax. From my perspective I would figure it would be more profitable to hitch a ride on the "drill baby drill" train. Is there really that much money in the alternative energy/ conservation industry? Or is money not the motivating factor? Thanks for your input.

    • If you're paying attention, you can see that the only solution to the "climate change" problem seems to be more government control over our lives. THAT is the motivating factor.

    • What is the motivation behind those promoting this hoax.

      Hey Kenneth! Money and power.

      For those who wish to rule the world, CO2 regulations can dictate your every decision, from how many children you have to the food you eat. CAGW is a totalitarian's wet dream.

      For those who wish to profit off totalitarian misery, there are endless funds available through government taxation. CAGW is a 1.5 trillion dollar industry that rewards useful idiots, and punishes those who refuse to submit.

      “The $1.5 trillion global ‘climate change industry’ grew at between 17 and 24 percent annually from 2005-2008, slowing to between 4 and 6 percent following the recession with the exception of 2011’s inexplicable 15 percent growth, according to Climate Change Business Journal,” he writes.


      Money and power, what every greedy politician is after.

  • Science is supposed to be about induction, reasoning from observation,
    experimentation, etc. to conclusions. Debate is supposed to be about whether the methodology is applied correctly. If it is, then the conclusions are true. If not, conclusions are rejected.

    Leftists have tried to make science deductive, as in, conclusion oriented. Championed by Stalin's pet scientist Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, debate is centered on whether proposed conclusions are acceptable to a specific ideological outlook. If politically correct, conclusions are accepted. If not, then conclusions are rejected and their proponents silenced -- permanently.

    In the former Soviet Union, dissenting scientists were sent to the Gulag. In the U.S., leftists have to settle for character assassination and/or legal harassment.

  • Kenneth Dyson. is 1.5 trillion dollars per year enough motivation for you?

    N"ew 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."

  • (Yawn)

    The only consensus is that the Earth has warmed since the LIA. Period.

    Over 30,000 scientists have signed a petition that states that CAGW is BS. Please submit a list of one million scientists who have signed off on CAGW, or admit the 97% claim is pure BS.

    What percent of Chevy salesmen say you should buy a Ford?



    I truly hate seeing so-called 'conservatives' undermining their own cause. Steely-eyed capitalism - and TRUE conservatism - demands a clear-eyed view of reality, in order to gain the competitive edge, make sound decisions, and ensure we aren't taken advantage of. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

    The military is taking ACTION - it isn't in any doubt about the need to prepare. Don't YOU be.

    So, here's the true basis of the 97% claim -- the REAL story. .(I suggest choosing the 'Advanced' tab, or at least the 'Intermediate' tab, if you really want to intellectually engage). Read these well-researched articles before falling prey to those who would like to turn you into the gullible sheep who ignore reality:


  • Yes, it is disturbing how natural climate change deniers cherry-pick start dates such as 1979, and 1850, to perpetuate their lies.

    Could not agree more!