What is the origin of the false belief – constantly repeated by President Obama, the media and others – that almost all scientists agree about global warming?
Claims continue to be made that “97% of scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” That’s what Secretary of State John Kerry told graduating Boston College students. It’s what President Obama said in his State of the Union address and a recent tweet.
There’s just one problem – aside from the fact that this assertion is being used to help justify policies and regulations that are closing down fossil fuel power plants and crippling our economy. The claim is completely bogus. As Heartland Institute president Joe Bast and climate scientist Roy Spencer make clear in this article, the papers used to create and perpetuate the 97% claim are seriously and fundamentally flawed. The alleged consensus simply does not exist; much less does it represent anything remotely approaching 97%.
By Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer
The myth of the climate change 97%
What is the origin of the false belief that nearly all scientists agree about global warming?
Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer
Secretary of State John Kerry, President Obama and others frequently claim that climate change will have “crippling consequences,” and that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” In reality, the assertion is science fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and exercises in counting abstracts from scientific papers – all of which have been contradicted by more reliable research.
One frequently cited source is Naomi Oreskes. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles and to have 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” influences but left out “dangerous” – and excluded scores of articles by prominent scientists who question the consensus. She also failed to acknowledge that a study published in the journal 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 an article in Eos: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists, and claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree.” Most scientists who are skeptical of man-made catastrophic global warming would nevertheless answer “yes” to both questions. However, the survey was silent on whether the human impact – or the rise in temperature – is large enough to constitute a problem. It also failed to include scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.
There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.
To read the rest of their article, go to http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
john hourigan says:
June 1, 2014 at 3:35 pm
1. Well, actually, no we are not getting warmer due to man’s release of CO2 into the atmosphere.
From 1945 – 1975, we increased CO2 in the air, and the climate got colder.
From 1975 – 1996, we increased CO2 in the air, and the climate got warmer.
From 1996 – 2014 – and continuning! – we increased CO2 in the air, and the climate did not change.
2. Removing fossil fuels and making energy will more expensive will NOT just affect “our drive to the supermarket.” But instead, you will starve to death in the cold and dark because there will be no food in the supermarket – ANY market for YOU to eat.
3.. YOU (your cause and your hysteria about global warming) IS CAUSING however the death of millions in squalor and poverty, mired in the poor lives condemned by YOU to burn dung for food and walk hours each day to hand-carry a bucket of water back to an empty that has no lights, no fuel, and no hope..
4. Oh, by the way, burning all the available fossil fuels will NOT affect the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. Increasing the amount of CO2 WILL however, greatly increase plant growth – even higher than the 22% it is already rising towards!
I still wonder WHY?
Why do Obama and Kerry LIE??
What reason do they have?
What are thier advisors (probably a lot more lnowledgeable on the subject than they are) thinking when they suggest this path knowing that anyone with sense can see through the empty retoric and actually prove the staements as incorrect??
Why??
One irritation is that most laypeople would suppose 97% of scientists includes all scientists. These must number in the millions in all facets of the sciences. Notice that the adjective ‘climate’ is omitted before the noun ‘scientist/s’.
john hourigan says:
June 1, 2014 at 3:35 pm
“This whole debate seems pointless! 97%? who cares?…”
The problem is that President Obama, John Kerry, probably most of the politicians, the whole EU, the Main Stream Media “care”
They keep using the 97% consensus relentlessly. Plus the schools K thru 12 and the Universities & Colleges. Did I leave anybody out?
Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
Besides the fact that the ‘warmists’ continue to rely on unsubstantiated ‘science’ and evidence that clearly makes their computer modelling a joke, they persistently trot out the 97% of scientists support global warming claim when in fact very few scientists support man-made global warming, even fewer support man-made global warming alarmist beliefs and programs.
Richard Tol stated “The consensus is of course in the high nineties. No one ever said it was not. We don’t need Cook’s survey to tell us that.”
Here http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/richard-tols-fourth-draft/#comment-822
Global Warming/Climate Change Zealots totally disregard the Sun. Are we to believe that human action is the sole temperature controlling factor? The ancient Egyptians knew that the Sun was the giver of all life. All of our terrestrial natural energy sources are furnished to us by the Sun. Coal, Peat, Oil, Wood, Natural Gas and solar power are direct result of solar radiation. The Scientific Method has been subverted to such a degree that most get their scientific information from politicians, talking head news readers and bureaucrats whose main interest is the maximization of income (read taxes.) Just my opinion. I could be right.
Read the Siena Group’s Club of Rome report, entitled THE LIMITS TO GROWTH, published in 1971/1972. In that report, “they” talk about using “global warming” as a meme to get humanity to blame itself, for what are actually natural, cyclical changes in weather patterns, and to get humanity to blame itself, for potential (future) natural catastrophes, like hurricanes, tornados, tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc. “They” plan these things DECADES in advance. While this Club of Rome report was being distributed, Scientists in the 1970’s were warning of a “coming Ice Age”. Look, “they” couldn’t even reach an agreement back in the 1970’s, so why would it be any different today. Keep in mind, that just because people are in agreement about something doesn’t make it so. 99% of people could be told by the government, and their media, that UP is really DOWN, and that DOWN is really UP. But, that doesn’t make it so. Look into CLIMATEGATE. It’s not science, this “global warming” push – it’s POLITICS.
The parallel with the 13th century is almost too exact. Then, at least 97% of schoolmen believed that they were living in the Last Days. Of course, most of them probably didn’t believe it all that devoutly, but they were willing to go along with it and uninclined to take the risk of arguing. There was even a brand new science – Eschatology – to provide the theoretical underpinnings.
And of course, plenty of people were making a good thing out of it!
“People like jen Podvin have no clue about the central issues”; Jen Podvin has a perfect understanding of the central issue, social engineering – propaganda: If you repeat a lie a sufficient number of times, people will believe it. CAGW has always been exclusively a social science topic, unrelated to the laws of physical science that determine climate. It was first proposed in 1968 by oil industry billionaires with no understanding of science at David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio, Italy.
“All across the world, collections of global-warming protestors financed by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund gathered on October 24 to call for forceful “climate change” action at the United Nations summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, this December.
The continual charge that so-called “deniers” are financed by oil companies should finally be put to rest, considering that a significant share of the Rockefeller family fortune came and continues to come from oil. Several oil companies have financed past McKibben efforts as well.
…despite the complete media blackout on the connection to the Rockefeller Brothers Fund through the Sustainable Markets Foundation, critics have seized on the funding as evidence that the real goal is not simply to save the planet. “I’m thinking that anything that has to do with Rockefeller’s money is never in the best interests of people or the earth,” explained a blogger at Aletho News. “Do these tens of thousands participating in the ‘350’ social engineering ‘events’ really understand the background of their financial leaders or are they, as Rockefeller’s buddy Kissinger might say, ‘useful idiots?’“ The writer also points to a myriad of global-warming propaganda grants — each over $200,000 — made by the Rockefeller Fund.
“We had no idea we would get the overwhelming support, enthusiasm and engagement from all over the world that we’re seeing,” explained Bill McKibben, a climate-change activist who founded the Rockefeller-funded organization 350.org that coordinated the day of protests. “It shows just how scared of global warming much of the planet really is, and how fed up at the inaction of our leaders.
Americans need to educate themselves about the facts surrounding the whole “climate change” debate before the nation is saddled with the economy-destroying measures being cheered on by alarmists and other environmental extremists financed by elitists like the Rockefellers.
Oct 27, 2009
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/6737-rockefellers-fund-global-warming-protests-as-earth-cools
Al Gore and Obama were co-founders of the Chicago Climate Exchange.
“Gore and David Blood, the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM), co-founded London-based GIM in 2004. Between 2008 and 2011 the company had raised profits of nearly $218 million from institutions and wealthy investors. By 2008 Gore was able to put $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through the Capricorn Investment Group, a Palo Alto company founded by his Canadian billionaire buddy Jeffrey Skoll, the first president of EBay Inc. It was Skoll’s Participant Media that produced Gore’s feverishly frightening 2006 horror film, “An Inconvenient Truth”.
The Small Business Administration estimates that compliance with such regulations (on carbon emissions) costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year — about 12%-14% of GDP, and half of the $3.5 trillion Washington is currently spending. Still, the U.S. Government Accounting Office can’t figure out what benefits taxpayers are getting from those many billions of dollars spent each year on policies that are purportedly aimed at addressing climate change.
In 2007, following an investigation of the movie, Sir Michael Burton, a judge in London’s High Court, ruled that it can be shown in secondary schools only if accompanied by guidance notes for teachers to balance Mr. Gore’s “one-sided” views. Judge Barton pointed out that its “apocalyptical vision” was politically partisan, and not an impartial analysis. He stated: “It is built around the charismatic presence of the ex-vice president Al Gore, whose crusade is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming…It is now common ground that this is not simply a science film- although it is based substantially on science research and opinion, but it is [clearly] a political film.”
Larry Bell 11/03/2013 http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/11/03/blood-and-gore-making-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/
Reblogged this on caprizchka and commented:
Is feminist scientist an oxymoron? Do we really need to push more women into coveted university slots just because they have an interest in STEM? Picture this: “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 to have 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” influences but left out “dangerous” – and excluded scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus. Her methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in the journal Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers – but she failed to acknowledge or address this.
Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in Eos: Transactions of the 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.”
Friends of Science have done a detailed deconstruction of the 4 main cited ‘97% consensus’ surveys and found that these are social proofs. No one wants to be odd man out, so the figure creates social pressure to conform. http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf
97% consensus Debunked: http://darkgreendevils.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/the-great-eco-wall/
I suggest reading the Cook et al. paper for yourself. It’s methods and findings are very clear.
“Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. … Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW,
97.2% endorsed the consensus.”
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf
And to the person who suggests “big oil” is paying for climate science because they support an AGU meeting, you have no idea how professional scientific organizations work (and why would oil companies support the 97% consensus, anyway, unless they agreed with it?) Scientists pay membership and conference fees to attend, and such sponsorships offset a small fraction of the costs. Personally, I think it’s promising that “big oil” is now openly sponsoring conferences like AGU, unlike the secretive private financing that the likes of Joe Bast are receiving.
bmunroe Cook et al (2013) uses the 1996 Houghton definition of AGW which conveniently includes fossil fuel use, land disturbance and other human factors. Cook et al also used the p*rno definition of AGW 9in their own words): “We’re basically going with Ari’s p*rno approach I probably should stop calling it that) which is AGW = ‘humans are causing global warming’. e.g. – no specific quantification which is the only way we can do it considering the breadth of papers we’re surveying.” Many scientists included in Cook’s survey as agreeing with AGW are vehemently opposed and said so publicly after the report came out. Not onlythat, it turns out the number of scientists who specifically stated human activity is less responsible for warming far exceeded the scientists who agree with AGW. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/that_97_per_cent_claim_four_problems_with_cook_and_obama/
bmonroe,
It’s interesting to watch people who have bought into the new CAGW religion. They lose all common sense, and they believe anything that their high priests tell them, no matter how silly it sounds to normal people.
There is hardly a statement that can be made where you would get “97%” to agree. That number is complete nonsense, especially considering the fact that the alarmist cult has never been able to get anywhere near to the OISM’s 31,000+ scientists and engineers, who stated in writing that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. If any of those 31,000 was ever contacted by Cook, their response was rejected in the interest of Cook’s propaganda.
If Cook wanted to be credible, he would have invented a different number, like “two-thirds”. At least that would have the ring of truthiness. But 97%?? Nonsense. And you know it…
…if you don’t know it, you are hopelessly deluded. That may well be the case. When propaganda like that colonizes your mind, there is no need to think any more. You just become a parrot.