• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

Exposing The ‘97% Of Scientists Agree With Man-made Global Warming’ Lie

by David Craig
September 15, 2022, 2:08 PM
in News and Opinion
Reading Time: 4 mins read
A A
13

earth globe spaceOur government is imposing draconian limitations on our lifestyles, our economy, and our finances to save the planet from supposed catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW), now renamed ‘climate change’.

Probably one of the most repeated arguments you’ll hear in support of the need to achieve ‘net zero’ is that ’97 percent of scientists agree CAGW is happening.’ [bold, links added]

President Obama is just one of many who have made this claim: ‘Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.’

Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. Read more: http://t.co/4lEEBYtVqf

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) May 16, 2013

So did President Biden’s Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry, when he warned of the ‘crippling consequences’ of climate change and said: ‘Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.’

Yet, in spite of the damaging effects reaching ‘net zero’ will have on Western economies, not a single politician or mainstream journalist seems to have made the effort to find out where this ‘97 percent’ figure came from and how accurate it is.

The main author of the paper who came up with the figure was John Cook, an Australian former web programmer and blogger who later gained a Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of Western Australia and founded what could be seen as a climate alarmist website.

He assembled a group of volunteers recruited via the website as part of a ‘citizen science’ project and tasked them with examining the abstracts of 11,944 climate papers from 1991-2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’.

Note that the volunteers didn’t speak to any scientists and didn’t read the scientific papers. They just looked at the abstracts – a summary paragraph or two.

The volunteers classified the abstracts into one of seven categories according to their opinions of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW):

  1. Explicit endorsement of AGW with quantification

  2. Explicit endorsement of AGW without quantification

  3. Implicit endorsement of AGW

  4. No position or Uncertain

  5. Implicit rejection of AGW

  6. Explicit rejection of AGW without quantification

  7. Explicit rejection of AGW with quantification

The reviewers then ‘simplified’ results into four main categories as follows:

Endorse AGW:
3,896
32.6% of abstracts

No AGW position:
7,930
66.4% of abstracts

Reject AGW:
78
0.7% of abstracts

Uncertain on AGW:
40
0.3% of abstracts

This gave 32.6 percent of abstracts that the reviewers concluded endorsed AGW.

Now comes the clever bit. Instead of admitting that just 32.6 percent of papers (actually just abstracts of papers) endorsed AGW, the group removed the 7,930 abstracts that didn’t take a position on AGW.

That left just 4,014 abstracts of which 3,896 (97 percent) supposedly ‘endorsed’ AGW.

This is like doing a survey of the voting intentions of 1,000 people. You find that 90 say they’ll vote Labour, 10 say they’ll vote Conservative and the remaining 900 are undecided.

You eliminate the 900 undecideds and claim that 90 percent of voters support Labour and just 10 percent of voters will vote Conservative.

This is, of course, complete statistical nonsense as the real percentage of the sampled 1,000 voters who have said they will vote Labour is 9 percent, not 90 percent.

That’s not the end of the magic employed to reach that wondrous 97 percent.

The reviewers lumped together three categories of abstracts – ‘explicit endorsement with quantification’, ‘explicit endorsement without quantification’, and ‘implicit endorsement’. (Implicit endorsement means that the reviewer felt that the paper endorsed the AGW theory even though the paper didn’t do so explicitly).

In the paper claiming 97 percent support for AGW, the reviewers don’t tell us how many papers fitted into each of these three categories, but the survey’s own database shows that of the 3,896 abstracts which supposedly ‘endorsed’ AGW, just 64 were in the ‘explicit endorsement with quantification’ category; 922 were in the ‘explicit endorsement without quantification and the vast majority – 2,910 out of 3,896 – were in the ‘implicit endorsement of AGW’ category.

Thus only 986 of 11,944 – that’s just 8.2 percent – abstracts explicitly said they agreed with the theory of man-made global warming.

To summarise, this ‘97 percent of scientists’ claim was based on the work of 11 to 12 volunteers, whose scientific credentials have not (as far as I know) been released and all of whom were probably firm AGW believers.

Each looked at around 1,000, often quite obscure, scientific abstracts and from these documents decided whether the scientific papers (which they hadn’t read) supported the AGW theory.

To claim such an approach is statistically valid is beyond farcical. To call the ‘97 percent of scientists who endorse AGW’ result ‘garbage’ could be seen as insulting to garbage.

Given the damage ‘net zero’ will do to our economies and our lives, it is incredible that not a single politician, mainstream journalist, or editor seems to have had the ability or the inclination to expose the dubious origins of the ubiquitous ‘97 percent of scientists endorse AGW’ claim.

Read more at Conservative Woman

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…

Popular Posts

Electric Vehicles (EVs)

The ‘Green’ Scam Of The Century: How ‘Renewables’ Increase Fossil Fuel Demands

Oct 23, 2024
News and Opinion

Antarctica Is Colder, Icier Today Than At Any Time In 5,000 Years

Apr 15, 2024
Energy

30-Plus Signs That The Climate Scam Is Collapsing

Apr 09, 2025

Comments 13

  1. Ken Warren says:
    3 years ago

    See too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewJ6TI8ccAw&t=127s

    Reply
  2. Spurwing Plover says:
    3 years ago

    All they do is screw around with the poll numbers until they get what they want

    Reply
  3. Allan Shelton says:
    3 years ago

    Something everyone should read………
    https://principia-scientific.org/carbon-dioxide-water-sunshine-life/

    Reply
  4. Timo, not that one says:
    3 years ago

    Must be the same 97% who also think that men can get pregnant.

    Reply
  5. Sonnyhill says:
    3 years ago

    So AGW is accepted widely but CAGW is not. CAGW is alarmist and most of the headlines are based on it. The UN IPCC are barking mad if you ask me. I’d like to know how many rational scientists believe that the renewable energy we are capable of harnessing will make a dent in AGW. China and India have no interest in replacing fossil fuels until they run out.

    Reply
  6. Richard Greene says:
    3 years ago

    based on my own reading in the past 25 years, 99% of scientists believe there is some amount of manmade global warming. My treading is almost entirely articles and studies by authors and scientists who refute predictions of CAGW. So my bias would be to find people who do not believe in AGW.
    I have only found two authors, Ed Berry and Murray Salby, in that science denier category. Tthe methodology of reading abstracts is not accurate but the 97% number is. The only problem with the 97% number is the misinterpretation of 97% supporting AGW, as 97% supporting CAGW, which is approximately AGW x 3. The author of this article has no idea what he is talking about.

    Reply
    • Timo, not that one says:
      3 years ago

      BS Richard Greene. If you want to keep your funding in the current system, you have to at least say that “there is some human effect on the climate”. If you could ask all these authors how much effect we have, they would mostly say it’s a minor or even undetectable effect. It’s a way to pretend to pray to somebody else’s god, and escape their wrath.
      Think of the Spanish Inquisition, for a historical comparison.

      Reply
  7. Spurwing Plover says:
    3 years ago

    The NYT’s covered up for Stalin and Later Hitler and Castro and is behind this while 1619 Project this rag should be on everyone’s Boycott List

    Reply
  8. Pig ZIZ Pigs says:
    3 years ago

    The 97% LIE has been exposed for decades

    The American MSM has NEVER reported so.

    They have always been the propagandist LIARS of this.

    The American MSM

    IS

    Public Enenemy # 1

    Reply
  9. Spurwing Plover says:
    3 years ago

    This 97% is what the M.S. Media and the Eco-Freaks tell their typical Lies about it all and we have phonie groups like Union of Concerned Scientists getting covered on the Evening Fake News Shows

    Reply
  10. Sonnyhill says:
    3 years ago

    I suspect that 97% of the people who choose climate science as their major already believe in CAGW. For them it began in grade school. Reduce Reuse Recycle replaced Reading Writing and Arithmetic decades ago. If a student decided to enter climate studies with an eye toward debunking the “science” and infiltrating a cult of group think and confirmation bias, that student will have chosen a lonely frustrating career.

    Reply

Comments are welcome! Those that add no discussion value may be removed.Cancel reply

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • oil rig drillAmerica’s Energy Boom Exposes The Folly Of Britain’s Net Zero Disaster
    Oct 3, 2025
    America’s energy boom and policy flexibility are widening the economic gap with Britain, where high prices and net zero goals are stalling growth. […]
  • Arctic sunsetNew Study Shows Arctic Sea Ice Decline Slowing, Driven More by Natural Variability Than Emissions
    Oct 3, 2025
    New study shows Arctic sea ice decline has slowed since 2012, driven more by natural variability than greenhouse gas emissions. […]
  • Attorney General Rob BontaNewsom Backs Off Climate Fight As AG Bonta Doubles Down On Suing Energy Firms
    Oct 3, 2025
    Two years after launching a high-profile climate lawsuit, Newsom is backing off while AG Rob Bonta doubles down on lawfare against major energy firms. […]
  • Farm irrigationMeteorologist Debunks Reuters’ Claim That Climate Change Threatens Europe’s Resources
    Oct 2, 2025
    Data show Europe’s droughts, weather, and biodiversity issues stem from mismanagement, not climate change, despite alarmist media claims. […]
  • Russ VoughtTrump Nixes $8B In ‘Green New Scam Funding’ In NYC, Blue States
    Oct 2, 2025
    Trump DOE halted billions in green energy projects citing poor economics, DEI hiring, and weak energy impact, sparking backlash in blue states. […]
  • SherrillRising Energy Costs And Dem Green Policies Top Of Mind In NJ Gubernatorial Race
    Oct 2, 2025
    New Jersey voters face rising energy costs as Democratic green policies and offshore wind expansion drive utility bills higher. […]
  • Hochul's green stringsHochul’s Election-Year ‘Inflation Refund’ Checks Can’t Cover Costs Of Her Green Agenda
    Oct 2, 2025
    Hochul’s election-year ‘inflation refund’ checks won’t offset the soaring living costs and utility hikes her green-energy agenda created. […]
  • South Asia monsoonSouth Asia Monsoons Not Becoming More Dangerous From Climate Change, Data Confirms
    Oct 1, 2025
    Claims that climate change is making South Asia’s monsoons more extreme ignore history, data, and other major causes of flooding. […]
  • wildfire carsRick Scott Wants Answers On What California Did With Federal Wildfire Funds
    Oct 1, 2025
    Sen. Rick Scott is demanding answers on how California spent federal money earmarked for preventing and fighting wildfires. […]
  • Biden test driving an all-electric Ford F-150.Ford CEO Warns U.S. EV Sales Could Halve After Federal Subsidies End
    Oct 1, 2025
    Ford warns U.S. electric vehicle sales could drop as much as 5% after the $7,500 taxpayer-funded federal subsidies expire in a month. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Subscribe to receive a digest of daily stories, or get emailed once they're published. Check your Junk/Spam folder for a verification email.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books You May Like

very convenient warming

exposing great lie

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Climate Change Dispatch

Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky
Share via
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky