From the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society
First Published November 20, 2019 Research Article 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467619886266
Abstract
The consensus among research scientists on anthropogenic global warming has grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles on “climate change” and “global warming” published in the first 7 months of 2019.
Keywords global warming, climate change, anthropogenic global warming, consensus, climate
We can date the beginning of consensus-building on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) to Manabe and Wetherald (1967). Their pioneering computer modeling showed that doubling atmospheric CO2 would raise global temperature by about 2°C, lower than the present best estimate but not by much. Their finding convinced the late Wallace Broecker that what he named “global warming” was “a thing to worry about” (Broecker, 1975; Weart, 2009).
As computer modeling steadily improved and global temperatures began their erratic but inexorable climb in the 1970s, a consensus grew first among climate scientists and then more broadly that AGW was true and indeed worrisome. Governments became concerned about the damaging potential of AGW, as reflected in the objective of the first United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, held in Rio in June 1992: “To achieve . . . stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” (United Nations, 1992, p. 4).
Because the use of fossil fuels has become so embedded in the world economy, it was clear that “stabilizing” greenhouse gases might require large-scale government intervention and regulation, anathema to some, including some scientists. This recognition gave rise to the repeated claim of global warming denialists: “There’s no consensus.”
Consider as examples two statements 20 years apart from Richard Lindzen of MIT. In 1992, he published an article titled, “Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus” (Lindzen, 1992). It appeared in Regulation, a non–peer-reviewed periodical from the Cato Institute, a libertarian “think-tank.” The article began, “Many aspects of the catastrophic scenario have already been largely discounted by the scientific community [and] fears of massive sea level increases have been steadily reduced by orders of magnitude” (p. 87). In 2012, Lindzen and 15 coauthors published a letter to the Wall Street Journal titled, “No Need to Panic about Global Warming” (Lindzen, 2012). It opened with this paragraph:
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.
The signatories included not only Lindzen but also a former astronaut and senator, the co-founder of the Journal of Forecasting, the President of the World Federation of Scientists, and a member of both the National Academy of Engineering and the National Academy of Sciences. This impressive list seemed to show not only that there was no consensus on AGW, but that distinguished scientists thought it might well be false. However, Lindzen was the only one of the 16 who had done climate research.
Scholars responded to the controversy by surveying the opinion of scientists. The results of eight such studies conducted between 2009 and 2015 showed a consensus on AGW ranging from 83.5% to 97% (Cook et al., 2016). But given the ingrained caution of scientists and their reluctance to affirm findings outside their own field, opinion surveys are likely to underestimate the consensus. Moreover, as shown by the controversy over continental drift, even a near-unanimous consensus among scientists can turn out to be wrong. If we look back at the early decades of continental drift, however, we find that there was little peer-reviewed evidence for or against the theory. As a result, early articles on continental drift contained much more opinion than evidence. Thus, we could say that although scientists turned out to be wrong about continental drift, the peer-reviewed literature was not wrong, only thin and inconclusive. This affirms that the most reliable way to gauge a consensus among scientists is to turn to the peer-reviewed literature and the evidence therein. This method also has the advantage of directly showing how likely a theory is to be true.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
OMG.
I first thought that this article was a satire – it is so utterly foolish.
1. Regarding Christy and McNider (2017) and Lewis and Curry (2018), I regard their calculations of climate sensitivity CS of ~1C/doubling as an UPPER BOUND of sensitivity, because they ASSUMED that ALL global warming in their study periods was due to increasing atmospheric CO2, whereas warming correlates much better with solar activity*, and CO2 is probably only a minor driver of warming, if at all.
There is no cause for alarm in both full-Earth-scale analyses by Christy and McNider (2017) and Lewis and Curry (2018).
2. Earth cooled from ~1945 to ~1977, despite strongly increasing atmospheric CO2. The calculated CS for this period using the same assumptions as point 1 was about MINUS 1C/doubling.
3. The recent ~20-year “Pause” suggests a CS of about 0C/doubling, using the same assumption as point 1.
4. The close correlation of the velocity dCO2/dt and delta temperature proves that CO2 changes lag temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record, and this observation suggests CS must be very small, and may not even exist in measureable reality.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1979/scale:0.22/offset:0.14
There is ample evidence that the much-higher CS estimates (often 3-5C/doubling) used by climate modelers have high-negative credibility, and are chosen to create false alarm.
Pick your favorite CS within +/-1C/(doubling of CO2), calculated from full-Earth-scale data and RELAX, BECAUSE THERE IS NO CAUSE FOR ALARM.
References:
CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY
by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., P.Eng., June 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2
Excel: https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Rev_CO2-Global-Warming-Climate-and-Energy-June2019-FINAL.xlsx
excerpt}
9. Even if ALL the observed global warming is ascribed to increasing atmospheric CO2, the calculated maximum climate sensitivity to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 is only about 1 degree C, which is too low to cause dangerous global warming.
Christy and McNider (2017) analysed UAH Lower Troposphere data since 1979:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf
Lewis and Curry (2018) analysed HadCRUT4v5 Surface Temperature data since 1859:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1
Climate computer models used by the IPCC and other global warming alarmists employ climate sensitivity values much higher than 1C/doubling, in order to create false fears of dangerous global warming.
The article references continental drift theory. A good example, as Wegener, who was a pioneer in meteorology, and geophysics. He proposed what is called continental drift theory of the movement of the continents. He had indirect evidence of his theory from geology and distribution of plants and animals. He was uniformly attacked, but he was right. The author of 100% notes the wrong consensus about continental drift theory, yet I don’t think he got right implication.
In my course in research methodology in grad school, we looked at the theory, and noted that it was because we didn’t have plate tectonics.
On the other hand, Darwin did not have genetics or knowledge of Mendel’s work. It was accepted anyway. Incorporating Mendel’s work and genetics into the theory of evolution, led to the Neo-darwinian synthesis in 1920’s to 1940.
I come to looking at the effect of climate change from the economic and biological areas of natural resource economics. That is why when I saw the PDO called the great pacific warming. I knew that they not understand climate cycles. . Canada’s fisheries scientist gave the climatologists a bit more information.
Am I misunderstanding math? You can’t get 100% if there’s even 1 skeptic. Maybe the should claim 110% of scientist agree.
“Maybe they should claim 110% of scientist agree”
I expect within a couple of years that claim will be bandied about…
taz1999
Exactly – Einstein: ‘Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.’ [In response to the book “Hundred Authors Against Einstein”]”
The ‘100’ were all NAZI stooges.
Significantly
Watch the pea under the thimble: Lindzen: “In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.” The propaganda asserted that everyone agreed that mankind affects the climate. Two vastly different things.
2009 and 2015 showed a consensus on AGW ranging from 83.5% to 97% (Cook et al., 2016)
Such a reliable paper I thought when I read it some time ago:)
https://rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com/2018/05/09/ever-been-told-that-the-science-is-settled-with-global-warming-well-read-this-and-decide-for-yourself/
Wait until it hits 110%!
It is easy to get 100% discard from the study every paper that does cannot be made to fit in with the proposition. 110% is more difficult.
Nothing but raw appeal to authority. A disgusting fallacy, but pervasive.
Absolutely. On something where money is involved or where the issue is political, we should not trust the authority of scientists and the peer review process.
There is the replication crisis. Most published research findings are false. Peer review only makes the problem worse.
As far as I can tell, nobody has come up with evidence that we don’t have to worry about the replication crisis. In fact, attempts to even just reproduce biomedical research fail as much as 90% of the time. In a dismaying number of cases, the original scientists can not even reproduce their own experimental results.
The authority of scientists is in tatters. At some point we will reach the tipping point where the majority of literate people realize that.
Appeal to authority is indeed a logical fallacy. Somehow most people can get away with ignoring that fact. In this case the problem has gone way beyond being a logical fallacy to being the screaming elephant stampeding through the china shop demanding to be heard. (Yes, I’m waiting patiently for the metaphor police to come for me.)
Jeez, that really shows the volume of production of this global industry.
And just how is it physically possible for that mountain of garbage to be properly validated and rebutted where necessary ? In the case of continental drift, papers were few and discussion and correction was possible. Now there is simply a tsunami of speculative , “maybe / could be / suggests that” political propaganda flooding the peer review literature which totally prevents self correction.
It is not rising sea levels which pose a risk, but the rising levels of climate BS which we will drown in.
This is analogous to the rising quantity of horse manure in late 19th century.
Peer review publishing is clearly no longer fit for purpose since self correction no longer happens or is even physically possible.
Peer Review? I guess they never heard of ClimateGate and the admitted effort to prevent skeptics from ever getting an article published in a peer reviewed magazine – even to the point of threatening any offending journal’s scientific standing if they stood up to the bullies.
“The authority of scientists is in tatters. At some point we will reach the tipping point where the majority of literate people realize that.”
I think that point has been passed.
Nazi Racial-Darwinian Evolutionary Science 100% Consensus
Communist Dialectical Materialist Science 100 % Consensus
Green Fascist-WarmTarding Plant Food causes everything 100 % Consensus
Consensus is not truth nor science. It just the imposition of Totalitarianism.
100%?
Is that all?. I think they need to pick up their game.
In Soviet Union, all good Politburo members get at least 102% of the vote.
These global warming “scientists” are pikers.
Putin is supported by 146% of Russian citizens )). Clearly alarmists still have a long way to go.
In Soviet Russia, you do not get 100% of Politburo, Politburo gets 100% of you.
Those are rookie numbers
It is eye opening, jaw dropping, hand wringing, knee knocking, to realize the so many dissenters from the prevailing ‘orthodoxy’ are not scientists at all, despite PhDs, book and article publications, or tenures. Because 100% consensus leaves 0% room for independent thinking. Only if you can mind meld group think can you be malleable enough to toe the party line and be with the in crowd, safe, accepted, taken care of.
When there is 100% consensus about anything you can be sure of two things.
1. You are being lied to.
2. It is not science.
This paper is great news. It is so obviously jumping the shark that they disprove their own claim.
Is that 100% certain? 😊
110% certain, I’m almost sure of it.
Scientists also agree that gravity exists. 100%. Are you really sure this is a lie or not science??
Yeah, it needs to be a million percent or more before any action is warranted.
John “Rommel” Cook is working on that as we speak, frantically reviewing abstracts and manipulating data.
Wow. Powell read the titles of the studies, and that was the basis of his conclusion. Jeez, what a thorough and remarkable study (sarc)
Which probably meant the Lindzen paper got included in the 100%.
Curious isn’t it that they dismiss Lindzen’s paper on the basis that he alone was a climate scientist whereas his co-authors were not. Yet, they accept the Cook paper. Is Cook a climate scientist? Was he when he produced his paper? (Rhetorical)
…oh please Elizabeth
“I found 11,602 articles, more than 10 times the number in Oreskes’s database. To read even the abstracts would be a daunting and time-consuming task subject to fatigue and error. Instead, I read the titles, and when it appeared that an article might question AGW, I read the abstract and in some cases the article itself.”
In other words, if the title looked like it supported AGW, he counted it. If the title looked like it didn’t, he kept digging until he could find evidence that it did.
Actually you’ve got it backwards. Latitude’s quote says “when it appeared that an article might question AGW, I read the abstract and in some cases the article itself.”
I emphasized the word you missed.
No, MarkW is correct.
The implication is that if the article supported AGW theory it was counted and only if the title suggested it might not did he go hunting for evidence that it did. Subtext: till he found it.
Presumably he ignored the several thousand papers listed by Pierre Gosselin over at Notrickszone!
Incidentally, does anyone actually still believe in Cook’s 97%? Surely not.
Gavin does: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
“Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree”
Assuming the articles are all short – need only 15 minutes to simply read through each – it would take approximately a full year of reading eight hours a day to get through them all. This would not allow any time to actually think about and evaluate the content. I do not need to be a scientist to be able to drive a red double decker London bus through the holes in this article and identify the flaws in the reasoning. A failure to read through every article and evaluate each shows how shoddy the researcher has been.
I estimate that I have examined that many papers (11,602) in marine science, mostly biology. Last count in my current database was 3,999. These were ones that I had some confidence that I understood, helped a whole lot by redundancy and repetition. I started this in 2001, decades earlier in some cases. This paper only had 11 references accumulated in 8 months. I am older and slower, but this guy must be a genius. Or something else?
There was also an almost 100% consensus against Alfred Wegener’s theory that South America had moved from Africa. How preposterous – how ridiculous – how simply impossible. So said all knowledgeable scientists.
Not quite all. Resistance to continental drift may well have reached 97% level, but not 100%. Google e. g. Alexander du Toit.
I’m surprised it’s not 110%!
That’s next. In fact maybe we need to control CO2 or we will reach a tipping point and we will have ‘runaway’ consensus reaching maybe 1000% by 24/01/2147.
I note the use of the word “denialists” to demean anybody that hasn’t drunk the Cool-aide. It’s really sad to see ‘researchers’ that are so into themselves that they have no idea of the harm they are doing to the world. At least, I hope the harm isn’t intentional.
I think you’re being optimistic, Hivemind. A lot of people think humans are a cancer on the planet and need to be eliminated. Maurice Strong felt that way, and he was one of the prime instigators of this whole mess.
“If it’s science, it’s not consensus.
And if it’s consensus, it’s not science.”
– Michael Crichton.
Summation: There is no place for consensus in actual science. Politics and religions are the realm lof consensus, both of which fit Climate Change.
Richard Feynman also firmly understood the limits of data when scientists tried to make conclusions that over-reached. And beyond any interpretation of data into the realm of conjecture, the blending of the two almost always leads us astray to the realm of negative learning and cargo cultism beliefs. Negative learning is where we are today on “consensus” Climate Change with the strong CO2 GHG hypothesis. Negative learning blinds us to what the data is telling us, stuck in old paradigms, waiting for a brash young physicist (a scientist honest to scientific method) to set us straight. The Strong CO2 GHG hypothesis that is clearly wrong by observational data. The weak CO2 GHG conjecture is still quite in-play though.
Crichton was exaggerating.
There’s no room for talking, caring or thinking about consensus in science. But a consensus is inevitable on binary questions with no abstentions. It must exist, but no real scientist gives a rat’s Oreskes about it.
The reality that consensus is the coin of the realm of religion and politics is not an exaggeration. Neither could exist without it. Science as a method for advancing understanding of the natural world though depends on its failure, repeatedly.
We’re in conse—um, agreement on that, Joel 🙂
Yeah this a million times over;
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”[1]
[1] From a talk at the California Institute of Technology on January 17, 2003, printed in Three Speeches by Michael Crichton, SPPI Commentary & Essay Series, 2009.
Regards
Climate Heretic
Except that the “consensus” of Cook et al. 2016 was actually 32.62%. Of 11,944 papers they selected because they mentioned global warming or climate change, only 3,896 implicitly or explicitly endorsed AGW. Climate alarmists have a long history of being bad at math, statistics, and good at lying.
We need only ONE climate scientist to speak up with dissent and unequivocally invalidate the conclusion of this paper.
Who is going to be first to take the credit?
https://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=223
Here are lots
What TF is climate scientist?
A physicist?
A geologist?
A chemist?
Mainstream science has closed its eyes to the truth.
Only an utter failure of their claims will destroy them to allow some real climate truth to arise in their ashes.
As you said, “climate science” is actually a multidisciplinary field, requiring broad knowledge. Considering Nir Shaviv and his papers on the subject, you could also have included astrophysicist,
Murray Salby, in the Preface to his book, “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate”, wrote:
“,,,Historically, students of the atmosphere and climate have had proficiency in one
of the physical disciplines that underpin the subject, but not in the others. Under the
fashionable umbrella of climate science, many today do not have proficiency in even
one. What is today labeled climate science includes everything from archeology of the
Earth to superficial statistics and a spate of social issues. Yet, many who embrace the
label have little more than a veneer of insight into the physical processes that actually
control the Earth-atmosphere system, let alone what is necessary to simulate its evolution
reliably. Without such insight and its application to resolve major uncertainties,
genuine progress is unlikely.,,,”
Of course 100% of intelligent, clear eyed, responsible, thinking sceptics also accept anthropogenic global warming. The question not yet answered is how much?
I do not. So it is at least 100%-1. CO2 is just as likely to radiate energy out as it is back, thus a wash on overall energy. If anything, the best it does is to spread the energy more evenly throughout the atmosphere. But it is a minor player there, as water vapor is several orders of magnitude a greater influence on the transport of energy through the atmosphere than CO2.
It has been warming at a relatively continuous rate since around 1850, with an overlaid sine wave, the end of the little ice age. The slope of warming between 1980s through 2000, even with all the adjustments the “scientists” make, is very similar (almost indistinguishable from) to one in the late 1800s, and another in the 1930s and 1940s. There is an approximately 60 year sine wave laid over a general warming trend. The sine wave is natural, likely due to ocean cycles, and the general warming trend is normal, as the Earth is recovering from the little ice age.
That does not sound as if we are doing anything past what nature does.
In the lower atmosphere, CO2 doesn’t re-radiate, it transfers the energy to another molecule long before it has a chance to re-rediate.
Beyond that, yes, if it did re-radiate, half would continue on upwards. But half would be radiated down or sideways. The longer it takes for the energy released to escape, the higher the total energy density is going to be.
Adrian, some wavelengths where CO2 is absorbing and reradiating are in a parts where water vapor is not active, thus additional to water vapor absorbing / reradiating. Although minor, not zero and a CO2 doubling gives about 1ºC extra warming at the surface. The rest from the IPCC’s 1,5-4,5ºC warming is from the “enhanced effect” of e.g. more water vapor due to higher ocean temperatures, but that is only in climate models and nowhere found in reality.
Only so many photons from the surface at those CO2 wavelengths, effect is logarithmic, effect of doubling CO2 from 410ppm to 820ppm is at most 0.8-1degC. More water vapour produced , as you say , is invented to create higher degC range. But even if it actually happened would mean more clouds, less photons onto and from surface, less excitation of both water vapour and CO2 molecules and thus less heat created.
To be honest, what really matters – at what attitude the atmosphere becomes transparent enough for the 13-17µk photons to escape the earth. The higher the attitude – the colder will be the gas, the less will be the emitted energy. Surface saturation is not relevant here.
“a CO2 doubling gives about 1ºC extra warming at the surface. The rest from the IPCC’s 1,5-4,5ºC warming is from the “enhanced effect” of e.g. more water vapor due to higher ocean temperatures, but that is only in climate models and nowhere found in reality.”
A very good point. Even using the alarmists own figures a doubling of CO2 is only 1.0C, a harmless number, and as you point out the rest of the warmth to cause the runaway greenhouse effect the alarmists fear, comes from extra water vapor that the CO2 is supposed to create, but there is no evidence for this increased water vapor at the levels pedicted, therefore 1.0C is about the maximum the alarmists are going to be able to get out of a doubling of CO2. And that’s if you believe their figures.. That 1.0C figure could very well be lower.
Nothing to see here, folks. Nothing to spend TRILLIONS of dollars on.
0.85, tops. Could well be zero.
Nope. Provide proof. I accept the possibility, I also consider it negligable.
All righty then…
Ah but its not enough to believe CO2 has an influence, you have to believe CO2 has a catastrophic influence, otherwise you’re still a “denier”.
Sorry, but as soon as the word “denier” starts getting tossed around, that’s assurance that it’s no longer a real or substantive conversation. It’s an evangelizing being done by an adept in the lying theology of global warming…
Ok – I have to ask – is this parody? Or is it just self-parody?
Both.
Want to see comments
So, “climate scientists”, for ~ 40 years now you’ve had one job – refine the ECS to some meaningful projection beyond the 1.5C – 4.5C you started the climate capers with.
And now here we are, some 40 years and $billions of taxpayer-funded research dollars later, but now you’re all 100% certain that the ECS is still 1.5C – 4.5C.
Most rational adults would call this situation an EPIC FAIL!
I’m a scientist.
I disagree that CAGW is occurring.
So it isn’t 100%!
The real world data shows that not much has been happening this century, despite a 10% absolute increase in pCO2, or a 30% increase relative to the preindustrial baseline.
For some reason they qualified it as “research scientists”. Not sure why that’s meaningful.
Who the Frigging hell are these research scientists?
Regards
Climate Heretic
They are modelturbators engaged in model abuse, CH. They have hairy hands and are blind. Oh, and some are manntastic paleo necromancers.
Well–I am a scientist and I certainly have not joined the consensus. I have kept in touch with colleagues graduating from university with me in 1970, 1976, and 1978; none of them agree with AGW. My brother is an engineer; he doesn’t agree–and there are many others. Just who are these ‘100%’??–somehow every scientist and engineer I know is excluded.
Has anyone yet done a study on the correlation between those scientists who are government/university funded and those who are in consensus on global warming? I suspect that number might approach 100%. If so, we have to seriously re-assess what drives ‘consensus’–is it money and politics, or is it science?
(I know, it’s a rhetorical question by 2020.)
Obviously, no-one stupid enough to doubt the ‘official’ position on AGW/CAGW/Climate Change could reasonably be described as a scientist. Problem solved! And that’s science!
Sort of a rhetorical question…
But as a real good pointer you should always follow the money (for all those government paid folk.. and their “belief” in the global warming scam)
When it gets to 120% then maybe I’ll reconsider my position.
Is James Powell just a pseudonym for Al Gore? Everyone who ever reads this paper will know its a lie. Let us hope it gets wide publicity. It could help turn the tide back towards realism.
What is the margin of error on [social] consensus and is it an evolutionary (i.e. chaotic) process?
One hundred percent consensus is not unheard off. Many South American and post colonial African leaders enjoyed one hundred percent acclaim from their constituents.
All I can say is thank goodness that someone else has taken over the mantle from our very own John Cook.
“This affirms that the most reliable way to gauge a consensus among scientists is to turn to the peer-reviewed literature and the evidence therein. This method also has the advantage of directly showing how likely a theory is to be true.”
The last sentence is really throwing me for a loop.
Forget everything you know about science. That’ll make it go down easier.