The claim that almost all scientists believe in global warming, or climate change and that human activities are the cause, is one of the pillars of the climate agenda. It is a convincing argument and most people believe it without questioning.
The public is told, “the scientific debate on the climate is over”, the science is “settled” and there is a climate emergency. Skeptics are swiftly denounced as conspiracy theorists, ridiculed and “fact checked” by Big Tech.
There has been an all out effort to convince the public, this is an example: “The Climate Deniers Death Knell: 97% of Peer-Reviewed Science Confirms Man-made Global Warming, Consensus Overwhelming!”
But there are reasons not to trust these claims, the public has been misled on climate change for the last 130 years. Doomsday predictions, of a coming ice age, or melting of the polar ice caps were made since the late 1900’s.
“The threat of a new ice age now stands alongside nuclear war, as a source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” – Nigel Calder, 1975 Read more: 130 Years of Failed Climate Predictions
The World Climate Declaration is a global network of over 1400 scientists and professionals. Their unified message is that there is no climate emergency, global warming is much slower, than predicted, there are natural causes and global warming has not increased natural disasters.
“Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science.. Scientists should emphasize that their computer models are human made. What comes out is fully dependent on what the programmers put in: hypothesis and assumptions.”
In other words, predictions are based on faulty science and incorrect modeling, (garbage in, garbage out)
The Global Warming Petition Project has been signed by 31,487 scientists.
“The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists.”
The 97% claim is based on a few studies. In the 2013 Cook study, they collected all peer-reviewed papers from 1991 through 2011, that used the term global warming, or climate change. Those totaled 11,944 papers.
They found, 64 endorsed global warming, another 944 endorsed it without providing evidence and 2910 implicitly endorsed it, the three categories totaling 3896. On the other end of the spectrum, it was 9+15+54 = 78 not endorsing it, 40 were uncertain. | 3896+78+40 = 4014 | 3896 is 97% of 4014.
But the Cook team only examined the titles and read the abstracts, but not the body of the papers. Many of the scientists, whose papers were categorized, as supporting global warming, have disputed that categorization. The authors of 7930 papers took no position, they were not included in the final count.
3896 is only 32.6% of the total, which was 11,944. The Cook team cherry picked the studies, that gave them the desired result, and show a “consensus”.
This is a typical example of an “outcome reporting bias”, when a pre-specified outcome is selectively reported in a research trial. Omitting data that is considered unfavorable, adding others that favor statistical significance, or including only a subset of data in the published study, are some of the ways this is done. In plain english, it is cheating.
The 2010 Anderegg study is also frequently quoted, in support of the 97% consensus claim. They divided the scientific community into two groups, one that endorsed global warming, (A) and those who do not (B).
But the study had many flaws, they left many scientists out of group B, who dissented over the global warming claims. They excluded the 31,487 scientists, who signed the Global Warming Petition Project.
Their paper itself admits: “Our dataset is not comprehensive of the climate community and therefore does not infer absolute numbers, or proportions of all (A), versus all (B) researchers.”
The 2009 Doran study is another commonly cited paper. It was based on a survey of 10,257 Earth Science faculty with two questions.
- When compared with pre-1800’s levels, do you think, that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
30.7%, or 3146 of those, who received the survey, responded to it. Of the 3146 respondents, only 5%, or 157 individuals were climate scientists. They excluded scientists with expertise in related fields, such as oceanography, hydrology, or meteorology, but included many with experience in unrelated fields, like policy analysis, health and engineering.
Only 79 were included in the final tally, 0.07% of the scientific faculty, to whom the survey was sent. This study is another example of an “outcome reporting bias”, where poor survey methodology was used, with the intent to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion.
The “97% consensus” implies that every scientist was asked and participated. But in every survey, that is cited to support the 97% claim, conclusions are based on opinions of a limited number of selected scientists.
There was a survey done in 2012 by the American Meteorological Society (AMS), that wasn’t outcome based. They asked their 7000 members, receiving 1862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think that global warming over the 20th Century has happened and it’s man-made. The rest of the 48% thought that global warming occurred, but it’s due to natural causes, or it didn’t happen.
The Netherland Environmental Agency also published a survey of international climate experts. 6550 questionnaires were sent out and 1868 were responses were received. In this case, the question only referred to the post-1950 period. 66% agreed that global warming has occurred and humans were mostly responsible. The rest didn’t think human activity was a dominant factor.
Both surveys debunk the 97% claim and reveal disagreements among scientists. The “97% consensus” mantra was invented to deceive the public and silence critics. The goal of climate alarmism is to create universal fear and blame humans for harming the planet.