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.
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.
How does the current CO2 level compare to historical CO2 levels? And not just the past couple hundred years. I was under the impression that they are at a historic low.
I propose that all Universities and scientific organizations change their employees $10,000 per year for parking privileges. To combat climate change.
ROFLOL!
“The consensus among research scientists on anthropogenic global warming has grown to 100% …”.
Sort of circular: ‘smuggling into the premise the conclusion to be deduced’.
No doubt a similar survey of, say, chiropractors as to the efficacy of their treatment would yield a similar result but no realistic person would accept that necessarily as a reliable endorsement.
All the same it sounds implausible, even the most repressive regimes would not claim 100% support, for instance in the German election of 1936 the N@zis claimed only 98.8% support.
“The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.”
Then it must be so … unless we have a consensus it isn’t.
Yay! It means they don’t need any more grant money!
“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.”
This is not a joke! No wonder argument is fruitless with totally corrupted “science” like this. This guy is an MIT PhD in geochemistry. I think we have to build entirely new schools and let these drones keep the ruins.
Gary
I think that what their numbers demonstrate, at best, is how effective the gate keepers are at keeping dissenting views from being published in peer reviewed journals. It also demonstrates that the authors are unacquainted with Chamberlain’s Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses.
Yea!!!!
100%!!!!!
Except for these:
https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/04/90-leading-italian-scientists-sign-petition-co2-impact-on-climate-unjustifiably-exaggerated-catastrophic-predictions-not-realistic/
https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Science-behind-the-World-Climate-Declaration.pdf
Email Prof Berkhout and he will send you a complete list of signers. The list he sent me had about 800 names.
My survey of Christian church leaders affirmed that 100% of them believe in one God and all other religious observers are denialists.
Can we believe anything related to climate science from a person such as: “James Powell has a PhD from MIT in Geochemistry”?
Do geos have their own chemistry?
“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.”
Could someone please spell out the chain of reasoning from literature to probability of truth?
Maybe he means “how likely a theory about the scientific literature is to be true”. Then you could read 1000 random papers and make some probability estimates about what the corpus of all papers would indicate.
You can find the list here. No need to email.
https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/WCD-A4versionMADRID.pdf
But according to Connecticut-based fiction writer Naomi Oreskes (when she’s not too busy saying the precise opposite), scientists had already reached 100% consensus in 2004.
Sixteen years ago.
Excellent, maybe now they will start to talk about the actual issue, the climate sensitivity.
A 100%? Why not 110%? They can manage that in sports, are the great minds of our times incapable of 110% percent belief? Are they deniers? They are clearly not trying hard enough…now there is some nice sarcasm.
I come onto this site, read the articles I am interested in and participate intermittently…I notice this site is chockers with scientist and otherwise knowledgeable people, practically all of whom…ridicule climate alarmism.
This is an excellent site, I’m sure you all agree, and I will continue to read the articles and comments here and Climatism etc to inform myself factually thank you very much….where almost 100% of the most informed people I have come across on these issues and many more besides, have an entirely different consensus.
Remember the scene in the movie zero dark thirty where Jessica Chastain says she is 100% sure Bin Laden is where she says she is and then retracts that statement and says it makes the analyst cringe? Consider the context of 100% scientists believing (emphasis added) that AGW is a problem and real.
This is a lie, call it what it is. Pure propaganda. 100%!
There’s enough to counter the alleged ‘100%’ here in the article linked below which recaps 2019 to give everyone reason to think AGW is now on its heels surviving on sheer BS, on a repetitively hypnotic narrative intended to disarm skeptics and lull the body politic into submission.
https://notrickszone.com/2019/12/31/2019-science-refutes-climate-alarm-on-every-front-shrinking-deserts-growing-islands-crumbling-consensus-weaker-storms-cooler-arctic-etc-etc-etc/
I am a research scientist on anthropogenic global warming yet disagree with the conclusion of the “100% of research scientists.” The method of the research of the “100%” exhibits an obvious flaw. This is that the models that are the result of this research make no predictions, thus providing a regulatory agency with no information about the outcomes of the events of the future for Earth’s climate system to a regulatory agency e.g. the EPA. Instead of making predictions, these models make projections and while a model that made predictions would convey information to a regulatory agency about the outcomes of the events of the future for Earth’s climate system, a model that makes projections does not do so. Thus, while a model that made predictions would support regulation of Earth’s climate system a model that makes projections does not do so.
Exactly right. The models allow them to test hypotheses based on known processes and parameters. That said, the known features are incompletely or insufficiently characterized and computationally unwieldy, thus chaotic and unpredictable outside of a limited frame of reference. The rest is a game of inference, the art of plausible, and the sociopolitically sustainable.
The only questions worth asking scientists:
1. How many papers can you publish if your data leads you to say: ‘Carbon dioxide is not the primary driver of warming since 1810’?
2. How much grant money exists for climate posturing and how much exists to do sceptical research with no foregone conclusion?
3. How long does your tenure last if you tell the truth on climate science?
4. Given all the previous answers, how can any sane judge and jury consider you to be a credible witness, when your economic survival depends on you maintaining the fiction of CAGW?
The key to demolishing this nonsense is removing the figleaf that climate scientists are trustworthy, dispassionate witnesses.
They are crooked salesmen who could teach lessons to Wall Street hustlers……
They have sacked, fired, dismissed, deplatformed, unpublished and retracted all the scientists that don’t believe
The results of eight such studies conducted between 2009 and 2015 showed a consensus on AGW ranging from 83.5% to 97%
A consensus that what? Its getting warmer? Cooler? What? What’s the consensus?
If I asked thousands of citizens of Vancouver if it rains a lot in January, I’m pretty certain I would get a consensus of 100%. If I asked them if the rain in January is catastrophic, I expect I would get a consensus of 0%. So I want to know, a consensus of what?
But I can rest with this refreshing thought in mind. Having reached a consensus of 100% sometime in 2019, I think it safe to say that the consensus hasn’t increased since then and in fact is most likely declining now. 2019 will be remembered as peak consensus.
And with the 100% consensus, we have this;
https://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-s-first-climate-change-refugees-20200103-p53okp.html
Still, nobody has answered my favourite question…
If Downwelling Longwave Radiation (DLR) is not increasing, then any warming cannot be caused by greenhouse gasses (because DLR is the very foundation of the greenhouse effect). So is there any evidence that DLR is increasing? I cannot find it.
There is one paper out there that purports to have found a DLR increase, but it absolutely tortured the data to death and can be discounted. So where is the evidence?
Ralph
Salute!
Great point, Ralph.
Maybe the Co2 molecules in the atmosphere of Mars “re-radiate/radiate” back out to space more than toward the surface of the planet. I need someone to explain why Mars is not a hellhole considering the amount of Co2 it its atmosphere. I understand the solar radiation is less than here. And I understand the atmosphere is much thinner/less dense. But surely it has more molecules of Co2 per cubic “anything” than we have on Earth.
Gums wonders….
Evolution and relativity are two other theories discovered around the same time as greenhouse gas climate regulation. They have a 100% consensus too.
a) they were deduced, not discovered
b) aspects of both are still hotly contested
c) after both theories were proposed, the reigning climate consensus was that the earth was cooling and another ice age might be coming. Then it changed to a warming consensus.
See the problem with consensus?
But perhaps you could answer a question? The consensus that has been reached is…. what? That the planet is warming? Certainly (for the moment). The humans are affecting climate? Certainly, we’re all over the thing farming, cutting down trees and building cities and such, how could we not? That the climate change is catastrophic? I don’t think so. And neither do thousands of scientists who’ve signed their names to various letters and statements saying so. Not one has recanted to my knowledge. So the consensus is that…. blank.
Fill in the blank Simon.
That’s what I thought Simon. Already the 5th and you still haven’t answered.
‘Start of the consensus building began…’
Sounds like something from the Borg.
This statement alone shows they gave no idea.
The purpose of science is not to ‘build a consensus’, it is true one paradigm may evolve and replace another, but the danger of ‘building consensus’ per say within science, is that it can mean science is beholden to whatever political interest or political paradigm exists at the time, and then ‘requires’ it to conform. This is a political process not a scientific one.
So there’s nowhere to go but down. We’ve reached peak absurdity.
“We’ve reached peak absurdity.”
Exactly. Nicely put.
To infinity, and beyond!
Next up, 110% consensus!
Didn’t Nazi Germany produce a book called “100 Scientists against Einstein”, whereupon Einstein remarked drily “100 ? Had I been wrong, one would have been enough.” ?
As I understand (and still seek to expand my understanding – “merely “believing” does not work) science does not advance by consensus.
Science is advanced by theory, evidence, proof, disproof and testing against the “real world”
It is religion that advances (and is rewritten) by consensus (so should politics, but more generally consensus ends up meaning “none of us is as dumb as all of us”)
This 100% pseudo-scientific consensus is a clear tipping point in the climate clown show :
– the climate buffoons just played their last card and it’s rotten.
The only consensus that scientists have is that they want to keep their jobs!
This 97,98,99+% consensus reminds me of a comment in the media about a popularity referendum Hafez al Assad had in Syria in the 1980s. The result was something like a 98% approval rating. On commentator dryly remarked that ‘Such polls are ridiculous and have no credibility as no one seriously believes that 2% of the population would have dared vote against Assad’.
Peer review is pure Lisekism.
The mere fact that such a study is invented is only a demonstration of pure anti-scientific propaganda.
We need to listen to the wise words of Einstein on Planck’s 60th birthday, 1918 :
“The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them. In this methodological uncertainty, one might suppose that there were any number of possible systems of theoretical physics all equally well justified; and this opinion is no doubt correct, theoretically. But the development of physics has shown that at any given moment, out of all conceivable constructions, a single one has always proved itself decidedly superior to all the rest. Nobody who has really gone deeply into the matter will deny that in practice the world of phenomena uniquely determines the theoretical system, in spite of the fact that there is no logical bridge between phenomena and their theoretical principles; this is what Leibniz described so happily as a `pre-established harmony.’ Physicists often accuse epistemologists of not paying sufficient attention to this fact. Here, it seems to me, lie the roots of the controversy carried some years ago between Mach and Planck.
“The longing to behold this pre-established harmony is the source of the inexhaustible patience and perseverance with which Planck has devoted himself, as we see, to the most general problems of our science, refusing to let himself be diverted to more grateful and more easily attained ends. I have often heard colleagues try to attribute this attitude of his to extraordinary will-power and discipline–wrongly, in my opinion. The state of mind which enables a man to do work of this kind is akin to that of the religious worshiper or the lover; the daily effort comes from no deliberate intention, or program, but straight from the heart..”
Both Einstein and Planck obliterated the “consensus” , and we would well remember how and why.
This idiot James Powell is actually saying that out of 11,600 papers he is purported to have researched, he didn’t find one that refuted the so-called consensus on global warming. How odd. I wonder whether these people ever put their own statements to the test before embarrassing themselves by going public with their stupid statements?
100% of the climate models set aside the physics of thunderstorms, using instead the parameterized large-grid representations of what the modeler expects to be so. It makes no sense to me that the highly fictionalized models would then be regarded to have any diagnostic authority at all to evaluate the impact of greenhouse gases on the climate. But the atmosphere is the perfect model of its own heat-engine performance, and we can all watch.
There is no consensus on HOW MUCH
Lemmings have also a 100% consensus to jump over the cliff…
This is proof that they are right…. at least they’re ready to “step down”.
And those lemmings which don’t share the consensus are booted off the cliff anyway by film=makers to preserve the purity of the 100%.
I await Lord Monckton’s comments.
Once all believed in the Divine Right of Kings.
Once all believed that excess blood caused a fever.
Once all believed that various Gods controlled the wind.
Once all believed Aristotle about everything.
Once all believed that life generated spontaneously.
To fail to accept these beliefs was heresy.
These beliefs did not make any of the faiths true. Led to a lot of death.
Clearly the author never visited Judith Curry’s website.
Arguementum ad populum is a very persuasive tool and often proved false. These surveys merely measure the success or failure of the propaganda and coercive tactics of the proponents of the argument with the methodology used in the survey usually designed to exacerbate the propaganda argument it is claiming to measure.
It is used as a political weapon by those with an agenda and has little regard for science or truth; often used to attack the soft underbelly of democracy.
A couple of years ago I submitted a paper to PNAS concerning the work of NEREM et al on Satellite Sea Levels. I was critical of the methodology used and all was going hunky-dory until it reached the refereeing stage when it was rejected. I believe Nerem is on the refereeing panel for this subject so I no chance. I have since extended, and improved, the paper to include Tidal Gauge readings but have had to resort to self publishing via Google Drive. Being a one man band crusader in the depths of rural England it becomes very difficult to get anything published. So I must remain, like many, for ever part of the large 0% group.
100% lying pieces of trash. There, fixed it.
Let me guess that these same “scientists” also believe men can be women.
there is a clear scientific consensus. write a paper that promotes the evils of climate change and you will be rewarded. write a paper that disputes the evils of climate change and you will lose your job.
every scientific researcher is well aware that this is the real consensus.
And then, so what? Go buy a condo in Reykjavik and leave the rest of us alone. The costs to change nature’s course are so high, and the likelihood of success for any plan devised by any group of bureaucrats and scientists working together or separately are so low that 100% of the world’s mathematicians, statisticians and economists are rolling on the floor laughing.
I believe it’s the Sun, and Pluto. Mostly the sun.
Did the author at least publish a list of those articles?
If so, perhaps someone can crossreference that with the NoTricksZone list of articles for 2019?
And classify them:
A) Any NTZ mentioned paper not mentioned in the ‘100%’ list is an omission.
B) Any NTZ mentioned paper which IS mentioned in the ‘100%’ list is a counterexample.
much more effort would be required to do:
C) Read all the abstracts in the ‘100%’ list.
And/or scan them for weasel words near the conclusion (like: “the evidence clearly shows NOT X, but we, of course, know that it really is X, so we need more funding to explain this anomaly (away)”).
Let’s see how many articles belong to group A or B 🙂
“. 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)”
Citing Cook, no sense reading beyond that.
Extremely poorly laid out definition of that the “consensus” is agreeing to, but assuming that they mean that anthropogenic CO2 will cause catastrophic climate change if not reduced, then if it’s 100% consensus it only requires finding one article published within this period that is critical of man-produced CO2 controlling climate change to falsify this claim.
Greenhouse Effect in Atmospheres of Earth and Venus
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-030-21955-0_7
04 July 2019
Gee, that must have been the easiest claim to falsify ever. Took about 10 seconds. Giving the ease at which it was to falsify this claim, I would say it qualifies as a “Bold Faced Lie” and also as “Propaganda”. The authors and publishers should be ashamed of themselves.
They have a headline that says 100% consensus, and it is peer reviewed and published. Done.
Regardless whatever criticism we can offer about this paper, they have accomplished what they set out to do.
It is not difficult to find fault with the paper. The only recourse is to get it retracted.
As the author maintains that scientists are a cautious lot (not true), and are reluctant to speak with authority outside their field of competence (not true), the survey likely underestimates the consensus…
So, the true number is somewhat above 100%, then. Nice.
I’m 100% sure except for one question. Should you refer to a climate scientist as a climatologist, a scientologist, or a Pseudologist?
Scientists as such do not have opinions For consensus well defined thesis is required which is supported by ample evidence and not refuted by any
Perhaps they haven’t read Ian Plimer’s various works. Here’s his latest contribution on the history of Earth:
https://www.spectator.com.au/2019/12/humbling-hills/
To give you a sense of the thrust of the article, here’s a copy of the final paragraph:
EXCELLENT quote. I couldn’t have said it better myself, despite having said it the same many times.
From the above article’s second paragraph following the abstract and key words:
“As computer modeling steadily improved . . .”
I hit a massive speed bump right there, and reasonably concluded the rest of the article would be fluff and not worth my time to read. So, I stopped. Did I miss anything other that the unintentional humor from the article’s author? 100% . . . really?
Even if there really is a 100% consensus, this tells you practically nothing. The issue is how much warming and what low carbon technologies upstream will come online. Molten salt small modular reactors seem a sure bet – cheaper than even fossil fuels, inherently safe and with a tiny footprint and no need for cooling water reservoirs, and no high internal reactor pressures all meana that low carbon power is practically at hand (next 6 years) and practical and should be favored by all
This paper has come up a few times on Twitter as I make my rounds and encounter the countless drones who just parrot whatever “climate crisis” related paper the Guardian has misinterpreted and convoluted out for their steady stream of indoctrinated puppets.
“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. I found only a handful of articles whose titles left open the possibility that its authors might reject AGW, and on closer inspection none did.”
It’s fairly safe to say that anyone who would take that methodological process seriously is not worth engaging with – they’re either too tightly bound to their forcefed indoctrination to actually think critically, or they lack the capacity to assess how absolutely retarded that analysis is.
Even more pathetic is the compilation of “climate change” articles that he chose to apply his stellar analysis to.
I don’t know about you guys but
“An experimental study on effect of Colloidal Nano-Silica on tetranary blended concrete”
And
“An optimized group formation scheme to promote collaborative problem-based learning”
Don’t really sound very climate related at all.
“This method also has the advantage of directly showing how likely a theory is to be true.”
ROFL!
The authors are confusing voting for your favorite entertainer, song, or movie, with science.
… and the authors are astonishingly ignorant concerning the consequences of unlimited forced spending and green stuff that does not work and legislation to de-carbonized.
Physical theories are either alive or dead or mostly dead (something recoverable).
CAGW should be stone cold dead (stinky, rotten to the core) based on the observational evidence and peer reviewed analysis.
Because of the climate wars the public are not aware of the evidence that kills CAGW or even the difference between CAGW and lukewarm ‘greenhouse’ gas warming which is almost not detectable.
For example, no one talks about the ancient climate because CO2 does not even correlate with temperature in the last 450 million years.
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76/htm
Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Global Temperature for the Last 425 Million Years
“This study demonstrates that changes in atmospheric CO 2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate.”
Of 68 correlation coefficients (half non-parametric) between CO 2 and T proxies encompassing all known major Phanerozoic climate transitions, 77.9% are non-discernible (p > 0.05) and 60.0% of discernible correlations are negative.
…. Spectral analysis, auto and cross-correlation show that proxies for T, atmospheric CO 2 concentration and ∆RF CO2 oscillate across the Phanerozoic, and cycles of CO 2and ∆RF CO2 are antiphasic.
It would be interesting to use a similar methodology to evaluate the papers which were submitted but not accepted for publication. Because the claim being made is not that 100% of research scientists agree, but rather that 100% of the papers accepted for publication conform to a particular understanding of climate change. And that is a very different, and far more plausible, claim.
How Billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg Corrupted Climate Science
According to my search of academic citations (using Web of Science) about 12,000 academic papers have cited papers that mistakenly refer to RCP8.5 as “business as usual” and many improperly compare RCP scenarios as policy options. Of those 12,000 papers about 2,000 of them (involving just the two Risky Business lead researchers) refer to work originating in the investments of Steyer-Bloomberg-Paulson and continuing at the Climate Impact Lab.
Further, not only has the USNCA adopted the flawed methodology of the Risky Business projects, but so too has the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, most notably in its 2019 Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. There can bee little doubt that climate science has been profoundly influenced by this campaign.
The science could use some work. The consensus is a theory with an evolutionary confidence interval.
11 thousand papers on climate change said climate change is a thing?
Lord a’ mercy!
This calls into question the very definition of scientist.
Must be anybody who publishes anything, anywhere.
But even then…
One of the many annoying things about climate change alarmism is the deliberate vagueness of the theory. We can’t let the Earth warm more than 1.5 degrees C? Try to find out, 1.5 degrees warmer than what temperature, exactly, and you can’t, because that number doesn’t exist. 1.5 is a real number. Why isn’t the base to which it is compared a real number too? Because it isn’t. It’s something known as “pre-industrial levels.” See what I mean? It’s a numerically undefinable figure masked as a numerical absolute.
Remember when it was thought that the elevation of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was believed to become catastrophic at 350 parts per million? We’ve passed that mark, and still no catastrophe. Well, the climate change crowd ain’t making that mistake again. They’re not going to tell us what average global temperature is the red line. It’s a secret.
And blimey, nothing can be inferred about any local climate from the mean global temperature (assuming that such a figure could actually be determined by objective, verifiable means, which it can’t.) If you knew the average per capita annual income of the all the peoples of the world, that would tell you nothing about the state of the economy in the city you live in. Similarly, the mean global temperature is meaningless. It’s just an arbitrary, and indeterminate datum from which it is falsely claimed that all kinds of calamities can be inferred.
I am astonished by people who ask, why don’t more people care about climate change? The answer is, most people aren’t affected by it in any way. In Edmonton, where I have lived since 1971, the climate really has changed. The winters are now shorter and milder, but the summers are not noticeably hotter. So climate change has been a boon. There are wildfires in Australia? Nothing to do with me, and therefore I don’t care. Nor does anyone else I know.
LOL, ROFL, ROFLMAO- 1000% jumping the shark! What a bunch of prostitutes! Wait even prostitutes provide a useful service! Shame on the ” scientists” “agreeing” with the party line!
Posting climate fraud propaganda with no critical analysis is a favor to the fraudsters.
I see a strong reliance on “Mathematics” in this article.
This is obviously a field riddled with “denialists”.
Adherence to the laws of mathematics and logic will lead to only one outcome – rationality!
These people even deny that CO2 can raise temperature 9 months in the past, yet the figures show there is a strong connection!
When will the New Science be accepted by these mathematical Luddites, committed to perpetuating Patriarchal White Male Mathematics?
Seems at least a few of you misunderstand the report here?
From the paper, the trap:
“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). ”
We all know Crook et al’s nonsense study, no? 11000 papers of which some 70 was explicit on A being the primary cause of the GW?
The important stuff:
Cook et al. (2013) reviewed 11,944 peer-reviewed articles from 1991 to 2011, using the search terms “global climate change” and “global warming.” They required that to be counted as part of the consensus, an article had to “endorse” AGW by “explicitly stat[ing] that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming” (p. 3). This led them to reject 7,930 articles, after which they calculated a consensus of 97.1%. Had they used rejections of AGW, as Oreskes did, Cook et al. (2013) would have reported a consensus of 99.8%, compared to her 100% (see Cook et al., 2016). Powell (2016) reported that, using rejection as the criterion, literature surveys to date showed an average consensus of 99.94%.
Read that again. The 100% claim is Oreskes claim that she found 100% result with the reverse search term REJECT the claim as compared to ENDORSE it.
Alas I suspect this report to merely be playing-with-statistics sorts of fun facts….
Last sentence, I hope you all agree that we, the Climate Deniers have run out of excuses for not doing more to have Climate Fictionists and Science Deniers retrained and if required, offered electro-shock treatment to rid them of their delusions?
Oddgeir
Lemme guess: except for all the papers talking about climate change but don’t mention AGW because they’re pointing to other, more scientifically backed causes?
You know, the 60% of papers that don’t agree with AGW?
Scientists is one of the ways the devil fools us.
The last sentence from the full article goes: “Denialists have long run out of excuses for inaction and humanity has almost run out of time.”
This is not a research paper. This is nominally a review article, but really an opinion piece, a scaremongering one at that. It’s short, tendentious, conjectural, states no methodology in getting to the percentage of 100%. Written by an old guy whose branch isn’t even climatology. It’s geochemistry.