Your No-Consensus Badge

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Commenters on my recent posting about using graphics as effectively as the Forces of Darkness do, but to use them to tell the truth, said they would like a smarter version of the 99.5% no-consensus pie-chart in that posting.

My large and able staff have burned the midnight o. The hi-res image below is the result. Attach it to every email. Send it to every news medium. Mail it to the White House. Make buttons out of it and wear them. Time to send the F. of D. sniveling into their noisome lairs.


Ø Legates, D.R., Soon, W. W-H., Briggs, W.M., and Monckton of Brenchley, C.W., (2013), Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change, Sci. & Educ., DOI:10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Jason Joice MD

Love it!

It needs to go to the talking heads who sit there with a blank look when they hear the 97% bit.


Hi. The “9”s in 99 aren’t very clearly 9s, at least with my eyes…


(Better, more articulated font needed)

Bruce Cobb

I predict a catastrophic rise in double-takes. Fun! A button would be nice, for those with the wherewithal.

Ed MacAulay

Agreed that the 9’s need to be reformatted, it takes a second or third glance to realize what the numbers are.

Jim Bo

Nice idea and effort but TMI. Better…

THE TRUTH…catastrophic man-made global warming is NOT “settled science”.

Less is significantly more.


No problem. Nothing other than “9”.

john lasater

Ditto on the Love it and 9’s comments!

Greg White

First thing that came to my mind is a word search of the phrase “Most global warming since 1950 was man made” Sure what are the odds of that exact phrase coming up. Just a critique.

So validity in science IS determined by a vote.
Just as democracy is determined by salary.
He who controls the vocabulary controls the argument.

Anything you have to read over again to figure out what it’s saying is pointless as a notice or advertisement. So is using a negative. What did those papers say? That some ‘global warming’ was ‘manmade’? Did they even mention ‘global warming’?
/Mr Lynn

Jim Cripwell

May I suggest, Your Lordship, that you send a copy of this to all the members of the APS panel now deciding whether to change that learned society’s statement on CAGW. They, art least, are in a position to move the debate in the right direction.


Low information readers are not going to “get” it. Consult a professional ad writer. Great premise, poor precis.

David, UK

Seems a little bit weak, using a negative statement to make a point. I’d rather see a more positive statement to the effect that x% of papers demonstrate that natural cycles are the dominant forces for climate change.
Even if x is <50 it doesn't matter – it destroys the "consensus" lie.

Change the 9’s

Graham Green

Lord Monckton is a brilliant geezer but not gifted in industrial communication.
It is extremely unclear what the message of this graphic is – and I’m not just talking about to the hoi polloi.
The message is:
A) 0.5% is a mighty small piece of pie
B) That’s the proportion of ‘scientists’ who think that man did it all.
I think it’s a pretty good idea for the skeptics to have a logo though – we need an anti-panda.


The 9’s look like 8’s and the sentence makes no sense at all until one realizes that it is a pie graph with the segments being referenced, and this is not easily apparent.

Hank Zentgraf

Good idea, poor design. Start over!

Nope! not gona work.
9’s is 8t’s.
Till I was told it was a pie chart I didna know.
Please plainer for prats like me.
Like 0.5% cost 3trillion.

Robin Hewitt

I read it 3 times and it wasn’t grammatical. I didn’t see it as a pie chart until davidmhoffer explained it. Clever chap David. I think it needs to be clearer if you want to engage simple people like me.

Jim Bo

Perhaps something along this line (with apologies in advance to anyone who really knows what they’re doing graphic wise)…

Can’t figure out the meme being refuted?
Lots of hits.

Reverse and spoof the message
97% of Climate Scientists believe the moon is made of green cheese
I hope this image works!

Mann’s hockey stick was the biggest reason pols
believed agw. A picture tells a 1,000 words and our politicians can’t read.

link to my image
97% of climate scientists believe the moon is made of green cheese
some people will understand the reference

Village Idiot

Oh….it’s supposed to be a pie graph! Silly me.
Message too, too wordy and convoluted…like the Lord himself. Congrats Sir Chris, another damp squib

Bruce Cobb

There’s no perfect message for the Believers. Here’s one I’d like to see:
Yes, the 99 and 44/100% is a reference to the famous Ivory Soap ad. It’s probably more like 99.99% natural.

Barry Cullen

TOO confusing! K.I.S.S.


Good idea, but how about redoing this in a format that can be used as a “signature” in a forum post, etc (think some type of rectangular banner would look great). I didn’t try it, but I think the smaller text would be difficult, if not impossible to read, if the graphic is shrunk down to a reasonable size.


Peter Maxx lives.

Color choice could be better. Red is associated with warming, therefore a different color should be selected.
Shades of blue to indicate cooling, with white lettering. Much easier on the eyes.
Font should be easily read, and not require a second or third glance.
Message should be positive: I suggest ” 99.5 percent of climate science papers say CO2 is innocent.”
Perhaps the good lord would consult a good trial attorney for the well-known ways to effectively convey a message to jurors.

In case anyone is interested, we recently wrote an essay on our Global Warming Solved blog about the scientific consensus on global warming:
In it we describe how there is actually a wide range of scientific opinion on man-made global warming theory from those who believe that global warming is almost entirely a man-made crisis to those who believe that it is purely a natural phenomenon.


As in the Yelloww Submarine. And apparently I’m adding exxtra letters today.

Richard M

This looks like you are playing games with words. I suspect a poll of the papers authors would yield a different number, similar to the problems with the Cook paper. Is that really the route you want to take? Sorry, not impressed.
The best evidence we have is the lack of warming and the failure of the climate models. I realize this is more difficult to “dumb down”. Still, we have a situation where ~99.5% of climate models have now failed at the 95% criteria or worse. Since models represent the predictions of climate scientists, then something like 99.5% of climate predictions have failed would be a better story and would also be harder to dismiss.

The 0.5% is not needed and is confusing, also I see it more clearly than the 99.5% because of the font and the color in the 0.5% , the yellow really stands out., If you included the 0.5% put it at the bottom and us a much smaller font.


The message is too subtle and the font is to difficult to read.

Pretty good, but a bit too complex to take in easily.
Only thing I can think of off-hand is something like a graphic based on below:
There’s a 97%
on Climate Change
Kinda merges the concepts ‘nonsense’ and ‘no consensus’.


who checked the 11,944 papers

Robert in Calgary

The 9’s are hard to read.
Actually – goodness, I’m going to agree with Roger Sowell.
“99.5 percent of climate science papers say CO2 is innocent.”


Idea is great, the image and wording feels muddled, it needs to be snappier and easier on the eye.


would love
A 99.5% Consensus of 11,944 climate papers find no evidence of man made global warming.
throw the word back at them.

Henry Clark

The “badge” image is an interesting presentation idea. Backing up what is said is particularly important for addressing newbies. The best use of something like the “badge” image might be to spark curiosity, while linking to something covering much more. For that, the study reference alone is not enough. Also having a short URL to a website addressing the topic of global warming in general would be ideal.
Unfortunately, there is no site more than mildly and very imperfectly suitable for efficiently informing a newbie, one of the handicaps of the skeptic side.
In organization, perhaps the closest to what would be such is
WUWT has some good articles but spread out over years of archives without particular organization other than if digging around with keyword searches, while the reference pages are predominately reproducing CAGW-movement revisionist propaganda versions of temperature and climate history (not so much deliberately as just since those are what most tend to be published in slick electronic constantly-updated high-budget form; selecting graphs “current,” in the sense of constantly-updated, indirectly favors them).
Even the relative fundamentals of what I’ve learned over time* was not remotely learned in initial browsing of skeptic sites, not in the first few hours, and only a small portion of people develop enough dedication to the matter to spend longer investigating.
(* Some of it is in , although that partial summary is not designed for utter newbies, while too short on space to cover other key aspects like the vastly more significant effect of CO2 increase on plant growth than temperature)


The monstrous lie that is AGW is exposed.


Since the heavy lifting has been done, I’m sure the graphics guy could make 10 or 12 or more versions of this, taking onboard some, or all of the above comments.
I rarely eat ice cream but, when I do, It’s usually vanilla. I do note, however, that my compatriots really do like a choice of about 20 flavors !!


Looks to me like it was done on an Apple MAC.
Didn’t you get the note from CEO Tim Cook to stop supporting Apple unless you pray to the CAGW gods and pledge fealty to Pope Gore?

Eamon Butler

Given that a lot of Sceptical Scientists were included in the 97% figure, and that has now been reduced down to the .5% as per Monkton Pie. Just exactly how few ”experts,” are there, who believe that, man made global warming, with catastrophic consequences into the distant future because of our contribution of Co2 from burning fossil fuels, is a proven fact?


Poorly done. It will confuse some.


The placement of the portion in brackets makes the message too complicated. Most people won’t bother trying to understand it.


Why don’t all those people just stop using oil and everything made from oil?