Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the “crippling consequences” of climate change. “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists,” he added, “tell us this is urgent.”
Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”
Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”
Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.
One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard.
She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.
Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” but left out “dangerous”—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso, and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded.
The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.
Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in “Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union” by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran.
It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.
The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer “yes” to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem.
Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists, or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of the natural causes of climate change.
The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.
In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences.
Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming.”
There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate are not evidence of consensus.
In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011.
Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.
Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming.
Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv, and Nils-Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.
Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models.
They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.
Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.
Finally, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus.
Its latest report claims that “human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.”
Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions?
The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing “anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.”
Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.).
It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.
Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA’s Aqua satellite.
Your exactly right Doug. These climate cultists won’t even civilly debate the climate issues.
Thanks for your contribution — illuminating but not helpful.
Fuck this gay and stupid website. Fuck off.
I have noticed you don’t monetize your site, don’t waste your
traffic, you can earn extra cash every month because you’ve got hi quality content.
If you want to know how to make extra money, search for:
Boorfe’s tips best adsense alternative
That’s because 97% of scientists do agree that human-caused climate change is a fact.
Stop spreading this nonsense.
Like Donald Trump saying ‘fake news’. He even labels things that are 100% true and because he doesn’t like them label them fake news. CCD does exactly the same with climate change.
Your statement is incomplete. Please clarify what you meant. 97% of what? “all” scientists? According to UNESCO there are approximately 17Million Scientists in the World. I have reviewed 7 pdfs of ranging from Oreskes, Zimmerman/Doran, Anderegg, Verheggen, Mailbach,Carlton and Cook. They average out to 23% consensus of their cumulative sampled targets. Human caused climate change may be a fact, but how much? Not said.
Of the 17 million scientists in the world … HOW MANY ARE ACTUALLY CLIMATE SCIENTISTS? Do the math ..then talk. This site is a blog people. It’s not written by scientist ..just common people who want to bitch about something they can not believe is real.. when everything around them is either burning or flooding away.. it’s still can’t be real. This site is what you call deniers.. they can’t handle the truth.. so they hide behind lies. People who write these articles are NOT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS… this is about the planet.. go the people who spend day and night studying. Why would people make these kind of claims if they are not real? How can we deal with such an enormous large issue as trying to save the world? Ask yourself what purpose is it for scientists to come together and do this? Nobody want’s these problems.. but it is here.. look around.. study the climate in many different countries and see how it is affecting the earth, animals and people… The human race is in trouble. We should be so lucky to have people trying to warn us.. for we must at least try. This guy here is wanting to just “have fun” with this.. read his About Page.. This is fun to him… It’s sad to me.. just sad and completely utter selfish. We are in a CLimate Emergency.. wake up! Is it fun that people’s home are burning down? 2500 homes burned down in Oregon in 5 hours.. in one night… Is that funny to you??? My GOD…. You better hope that your fun… is right.. because you will be sorry as more and more people die, are displaced and can no longer live in areas that are severly affected. Los Angeles reached 121 degrees on Sept.6th 2020, fires are getting worse in California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado… and so on.. every year we are burning more and more and more forest and we can not breathe the air. Hurricanes are increasing and more and more and more and more of them.. each year… You better be right… because your site doesn’t give anybody hope.. when you think this is just FUN and GAMES.. how sickly selfish of you!! https://www.theclimatemobilization.org/climate-emergency/?fbclid=IwAR0tCMrkL4TwHWoaxzpNTyCfEajZvO7cBdpSSbAkViO5crxaH2h9xCv2Mb8
People like this prove why “Climate Change” nee “Global Warming” is now a cult and not science. In science, you come up with a theory based on data collected, then keep collecting data to test the theory. Now the original theory.. since the industrial revolution, temperatures have risen, is reasonable. But correlation does not equal causation. The fact that we use 200 years of measurements to represent something that is 6 Billion yrs old.. has a conclusion – all done, is crazy. Think about it, what caused various ice ages, and for them to end before people were driving around in cars? Could there be other forces? volcanoes, earthquakes, solar flares, wobbles in the rotation axis of the earth… Anyway, in this whole debate science has gone.. anyone who querries it is a denier, it is a cult/religion where beliefs outway science. Similar things happened when scientists question the earth being flat (flat earth deniers!), thankfully science won out. Hopefully, science can win before we spend too much money to fix something that hasn’t be tested…. Hey but at least people can get on the bandwagon and pat themselves on the back, and a lot of people can make money by putting “green” in front of everything they sell.
Ian, Please, please, please show us the list – you know – the list which contains the names of all scientists in the World, with their answers to the questions about Man Made Climate Change. That way, once and for all, the question will be answered – AFTER ALL YOU HAVE OBVIOUSLY SEEN THIS LIST – otherwise you would not know beyond all doubt that 97% of scientists agree.
Since when does scientific agreement constitute the facts – after all – all knowledgable people agreed that he earth was flat, the Catholic Church had Galileo imprisoned under house arrest and renounce all his findings because he dared to defy the “Census” that the Earth was the centre of the Universe and the Sun and all other “Heavenly Bodies’ went around the Earth.
Even now the Global Warming Alarmists poster boy – Michael Mann – is now officially in Contempt of Court in British Colombia becaue he refuses to reveal the data upon which he has Fraudulently created the “Temperature Hockey Stick” upon which Governments Worldwide have fastened their Taxation to extreme policies regarding Global Warming (Sorry – forgot you had to change your name to Climate Change because the Earth was actually cooling for 18 yrs).
In summary – please produce facts – not narrative and that way you and your alarmarmist, controlling friends will have a platform to stand on
His last name says it all. Some people find purpose in being a part of something larger than themselves that strokes their ideology, they do not question the mob, and just move with it. Only a simpleton would believe the 97% fantasy, poll after poll shows a house divided. And no, 97% of scientists are not wildly fanatical leftists, not even half are.
I can post a list of over 31,000 working scientists, by name, who say CAGW is BS, alarmists cannot come up with even half that. All they can do is point to political statements made by the leadership of certain groups. Only skeptics can list actual working scientists in the tens of thousands.
If we are honest, this is a likely assessment…
S. Fred Singer said in an interview with the National Association of Scholars (NAS) that “the number of skeptical qualified scientists has been growing steadily; I would guess it is about 40% now.”
And just as a bank executive would never speak out against banking policies as long as he is employed by a bank, working climate scientists know where the money is and it isn’t in telling the truth.
So no Ian, 97% of scientists do not believe in your fantasy.
Of all the articles published on climate change during the time period mentined above, 2/3rds did not assign blame for what was causing what was then “Global warming”…
of the remaining 1/3, “97%” blamed human activity on the ‘then’ global warming.
And as Dan Britt said, “We just got out of a warming part of a general cooling period in Earth’s history…”
Dan Britt – Orbits and Ice Ages: The History of Climate (2012) How you feel about climate change depends on how you feel about Miami and the Keys. Fine with them under water? Then you might be fine with global warming.
you mean links like this Ian?
https://research-repository.uwa.edu.au/en/publications/quantifying-the-consensus-on-anthropogenic-global-warming-in-the-
“We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991-2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘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”
If you gloss over and see what you are programmed to the 97.1% is there
Read it again and actually the majority had no position 66.4% (maybe they wanted more information like me? Maybe they need to feed the kids and like to keep a job because of the political leaning of their unscientific boss and his NGO cronies? So the 97% is now already an actual 33.6
Read it again and you see that the “study” was based on a search matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’ so biased right away.
Why is it biased? Because it separates people into those that see the warming last century as normal. The other group are looking for people already writing about warming. Both groups are already there as a biased search otherwise it would be a study of all those studying the climate.
A better one I found is here:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.png
The Doran & Zimmerman 2009 study was done for a master’s thesis and involved a 9-question survey. The 2009 peer reviewed publication that followed the study reported on 2 of the 9 questions. The study found, in part, that 96.4% of “climatologists who are active publishers on climate change” agree that mean global temperatures have risen “compared with pre-1800s levels”, and that 97.4% (75 of 77) agree that human activity “is a significant contributing factor” in temperature change. The study concludes the distribution of answers to those survey questions implies that debate on the “role played by human activity is largely non-existent” amongst climate experts.
1. Here prove this and here is your masters (Universities are rife with group think with critical thinkers loosing their jobs for speaking the facts.
2. The people are already writing papers on climate because they think Man has caused the problems.
3. “Is significant” is a generalisation. To me any measurable difference is significant in scientific terms but it can be insignificant in real terms.
4. “The study concludes the distribution of answers to those survey questions implies that debate on the “role played by human activity is largely non-existent” amongst climate experts” No it concludes the rigged study designed on those studying climate change that are probably studying because they have grants to try to prove a conclusion already made and failed by liars that hide data in a graph to provoke alarm. It concludes that they do not include climate experts that have a rich career in this topic because that would skew these numbers a great deal.
5. Actually over 20% climate Scientist disagree. The other groups are even grouped in a way that publishing shit often wins over quality papers over a longer period.
The Anderegg et al 2010 source defined a scientist’s expertise as determined by his or her number of climate publications. The top 50 scientists considered CE (“convinced by the evidence” in the terminology of the authors) wrote an average of 408 articles each which were submitted to and successfully published by climate journals. Scientists were counted as UE (“unconvinced by the evidence”) if having signed a public “statement strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC.” That resulted in a list of 472 UE scientists, of whom 5 were among the 200 most-published scientists in the study’s sample, amounting to 2.5% when the other 195 (97.5%) were counted as CE.
That study’s sample included 903 scientists counted as CE (“convinced by the evidence”). Scientists were assumed to be CE when in the list of those credited by the IPCC as having done research utilized by AR4 Working Group I. Such an assumption resulted in a list of 619 names, which, after adjusting for duplication, became a total of 903 when also adding in those who signed one of several statements supporting the IPCC.
The Anderegg et al 2010 source defined a scientist’s expertise as determined by his or her number of climate publications. The top 50 scientists considered CE (“convinced by the evidence” in the terminology of the authors) wrote an average of 408 articles each which were submitted to and successfully published by climate journals. Scientists were counted as UE (“unconvinced by the evidence”) if having signed a public “statement strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC.” That resulted in a list of 472 UE scientists, of whom 5 were among the 200 most-published scientists in the study’s sample, amounting to 2.5% when the other 195 (97.5%) were counted as CE.
The Anderegg et al 2010 source defined a scientist’s expertise as determined by his or her number of climate publications. The top 50 scientists considered CE (“convinced by the evidence” in the terminology of the authors) wrote an average of 408 articles each which were submitted to and successfully published by climate journals. Scientists were counted as UE (“unconvinced by the evidence”) if having signed a public “statement strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC.” That resulted in a list of 472 UE scientists, of whom 5 were among the 200 most-published scientists in the study’s sample, amounting to 2.5% when the other 195 (97.5%) were counted as CE.
That study’s sample included 903 scientists counted as CE (“convinced by the evidence”). Scientists were assumed to be CE when in the list of those credited by the IPCC as having done research utilized by AR4 Working Group I. Such an assumption resulted in a list of 619 names, which, after adjusting for duplication, became a total of 903 when also adding in those who signed one of several statements supporting the IPCC.
Another rigged vote and with the vote encompassing all of the IPCC’s work to overshadow
They should do a study with all qualified scientists working or retired in the different groups. Have a unique random code given to them that keeps their career safe.
1. Is your research related to studying climate change?
2. Is your research related to studying the effects of human caused climate change?
3. Is your research related to climate sciences regardless of climate change reasons?
3. Is your research related to climate sciences regardless of climate change?
4. Do you believe a small amount of climate change to be due to CO2
5. Do you believe a medium amount of climate change to be due to CO2
6. Do you believe a large amount of climate change to be due to CO2
At the end of the day it does not matter if a REAL 99% agree, or 99.999 do.
Only 1 is needed to disprove the thesis that manmade CO2 release IS the reason for the recent warming period.
All that happens, is a reframing of phrase when the far left have no facts remaining. This is why we had “global warming” as some sort of bed wetting phenomena by the left. Then we had “climate change” errr yes…it’s a bit like seasons that change. It changes all the time. Then we have consensus and 97% this and that.
Well if 97% agree – it shouldn’t be too difficult to pop a couple of “experts” that talk about the science instead of a fucking consensus among made up groups of people assimilated into a borg structure.
Bring it on and let us discuss the science on the far left BBC propaganda outlet that was once a decent news channel a long time ago. (live debate? – not a cherry picked we will put this on air when nobody is watching for minimum audience)
Even Nazis can me correct sometimes. Another is just true without any politics at all.. Bring on science please instead of a religion of thinking based on a TV set.
Get yourself educated and LOOK at the data on http://www.climate4u.com come it’s all there and real and not political except for ongoing discussion on the parts changed.
“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.”
― Joseph Goebbels
“The essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never escape from it.”
— Joseph Goebbels
“You have nothing to fear, if you have nothing to hide”
— Joseph Goebbels
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth”
-Albert Einstein