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.
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.