Anthony will have a response to this silliness later today.
More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
ITHACA, N.Y. – More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.
The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.
“We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it’s pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change,” said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science at Cornell University and the paper’s first author.
“It’s critical to acknowledge the principal role of greenhouse gas emissions so that we can rapidly mobilize new solutions, since we are already witnessing in real time the devastating impacts of climate related disasters on businesses, people and the economy,” said Benjamin Houlton, Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell and a co-author of the study, “Greater than 99% Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change in the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature,” which published Oct. 19 in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
In spite of such results, public opinion polls as well as opinions of politicians and public representatives point to false beliefs and claims that a significant debate still exists among scientists over the true cause of climate change. In 2016, the Pew Research Center found that only 27% of U.S. adults believe that “almost all” scientists agreed that climate change is due to human activity, according to the paper. A 2021 Gallup poll pointed to a deepening partisan divide in American politics on whether Earth’s rising observed temperatures since the Industrial Revolution were primarily caused by humans.
“To understand where a consensus exists, you have to be able to quantify it,” Lynas said. “That means surveying the literature in a coherent and non-arbitrary way in order to avoid trading cherry-picked papers, which is often how these arguments are carried out in the public sphere.”
In the study, the researchers began by examining a random sample of 3,000 studies from the dataset of 88,125 English-language climate papers published between 2012 and 2020. They found only four out of the 3,000 papers were skeptical of human-caused climate change. “We knew that [climate skeptical papers] were vanishingly small in terms of their occurrence, but we thought there still must be more in the 88,000,” Lynas said.
Co-author Simon Perry, a United Kingdom-based software engineer and volunteer at the Alliance for Science, created an algorithm that searched out keywords from papers the team knew were skeptical, such as “solar,” “cosmic rays” and “natural cycles.” The algorithm was applied to all 88,000-plus papers, and the program ordered them so the skeptical ones came higher in the order. They found many of these dissenting papers near the top, as expected, with diminishing returns further down the list. Overall, the search yielded 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly skeptical, all published in minor journals.
If the 97% result from the 2013 study still left some doubt on scientific consensus on the human influence on climate, the current findings go even further to allay any uncertainty, Lynas said. “This pretty much should be the last word,” he said.
###
Question begging on stilts, if you ask me.
Most definitely petitio principii.
And 99.9% of UFOlogists believe aliens exist. 99.9% of ghost hunters say ghost exist. 99.9% of Bigfoot hunters say Bigfoot exists. See a pattern?
Good points. 🙂
The only thing that comes close to 99.9% ,
indeed it is 100%,are the failures of doomsday predictions.
They were al completely wrong.
Ice age scare.
Run out of oil by 2000.
Disappearence of arctic ice and polar bears.
We will all die in a blue dust cloud.
Etc.etc. Etc.
And the only other 100% thing is,
that all those doomsday predictions are Made in USA.
Out of 200 countries only one has the ultimate superior people that can redefine
reality.
Frpm the article: ““We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it’s pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change,” said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science at Cornell University and the paper’s first author.”
If that’s the case, can you explain how CO2 works to create this situation?
I didn’t think so.
And none of those studies you surveyed can explain it either.
From the article: ““It’s critical to acknowledge the principal role of greenhouse gas emissions so that we can rapidly mobilize new solutions, since we are already witnessing in real time the devastating impacts of climate related disasters on businesses, people and the economy,” said Benjamin Houlton, Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell and a co-author of the study,”
None of that is true. These guys are just parroting the climate change propaganda.
I honestly fear the solutions they propose, as they will do more damage to the world than any amount of CO2 that has been released ever could.
It’s okay with all the COP26 pledges we are still putting out 35Gt of CO2 in 2040. So for the doomsayers we are going there to see if they are right 🙂
Lying with a true statement:
“….since we are already witnessing in real time the devastating impacts of climate related disasters.”
Of course we are witnessing “in real time” devastating impacts; impacts that have occurred since extreme weather has been recorded, and often much worse in the past. (You are supposed to conclude these impacts are only recent.)
When they attempt to mislead as obviously as this, there is reason to doubt their main assertion.
Past “studies” of this nature used the assumption that if a paper very specifically did NOT disagree with “human caused” climate change, and even made no comment, the study made the assumption you agreed.
And of course ANY human contribution to increased CO2 and then by inference increased temperatures was also “agreement”. (e.g. Doran and Zimmerman).
Lastly if you wrote a paper asking what impact increased temperatures would have on a horned frog, that was ALSO implicit agreement.
But we have cell phones now! Written records? Black and white pictures? Film?!?
Nothing bad happened before a cell phone was there to record it.
Everything else is, like, prehistoric!
If you chart them starting in 1700 you’ll see a huge increase in the numbers of “Named Storms” in the last half of the 20th century…
Yeah, that too.
I used to play golf with a professor/friend about 2003, and he told me the surest way to get funding was to have global warming mentioned in your proposals. I told him that was going to bastardize the science … He agreed it wasn’t a good thing BUT he had a kid in college, a mortgage, and it greatly aided his real research interests’ funding! He was a biology professor.
Yes, why fund research into some obscure beetle unless it was threatened by climate change?
‘“We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it’s pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change.”’
That is undemocratic. Case closed. Indeed it’s long past time us, the demos, set about democratising every institutional dictatorship, academic and otherwise, that seeks to close down us, the demos, and democratic debate on this or any other issue.
From the article: “If the 97% result from the 2013 study still left some doubt on scientific consensus on the human influence on climate, the current findings go even further to allay any uncertainty, Lynas said. “This pretty much should be the last word,” he said.”
The 97 percent study was a fraud, and this new study is just a continuation of the same fraud.
Wait until you see how they arrived at their results.
I agree, 100% of journal editors refuse to publish papers skeptical of the degree of human causes of climate change. Yet they will publish any and every paper that attributes every type of weather to human causes and any and every paper that claims that a particular creature is in danger because of climate change.
Also, as in the earlier 97% paper, they include in their statistics any paper that mentions (i.e. assumes) a possible human cause for climate change even if the primary subject of the paper is a completely unrelated topic.
Suppose there were only 8 papers that actually focused on the causes of climate change and 4 of them were skeptical about human causation?
Figures lie and liars figure.
What utter humiliation for Cornell. Such abject, non-scientific rubbish. I really think that in terms of scientific integrity we are approaching The End of Days.
I get so tired for hearing consensus when people are talking about science. Consider the statement “The consensus is you can make a lot of money in a short time by robbing a bank”. It often overlooks other important facts and it can be very wrong. Consensus as an air of authority but it means opinion, not fact. The problem is people think they are being told fact when it could very well be fiction.
Consensus (i.e. democratic/dictatorial agreement) is a social construct that bears a degree of correlation with the facts, truth, etc.
Even Kim Young Un does not get a vote like that. These people do not live in the real world.
Since they’re begging the question, I’m surprised their conclusion wasn’t 100%.
The claim is so transparently ridiculous that it doesn’t merit comment, never mind debate!
It is the only possible result from circular reasoning. Always look for the fallacy when encountering any warmunist claim. You needn’t bother with science at all.
Some, Select Scientific Literature Matters (SLM)
Weapons grade rubbish.
Ignore it.
Dual-use. A doubled-edged scalpel, certainly.
Excuse me, despite these bogus claims from another Ivy (Cornell) that has bitten the dust, what astounded me is that over 88 thousand climate-related papers were published over a 9 year period! That is almost 10,000 papers per year, all starting with the same premise — human-induced climate change. To get published today, anthropogenic climate change must be stated as a “given,” so of course almost 100% would appear to agree as would have been stated in their abstracts, introductions and discussions.
Of course, when I looked it up, I found a 2015 medical paper that said there were over 28,000 journals (JOURNALS, not articles) just in the biomedical field alone.
You are on to it. You have made an excellent observation. What we are seeing is a “production enterprise” turning out (study/article/speculation/opinion/boul chit) publications intended to inject a forceful narrative when there is none.
“.. intended to inject a forceful narrative when there is none.”
More simple than that.
“intended to qualify for a degree or tenure” is more like it.
Dr. Jill’s doctoral thesis is exhibit one.
This is absolute nonsense. The climate has ALWAYS changed even when there were very few humans living on the planet !!! Do some research and find the graphs which show what our climate was like 500 + years ago – it changed continuously depending on the sun and its sunspots.
Or look at the changes from about 12,000 to 7,000 BP … dramatic!
Could be true. Just means publications are censored, though. The Climategate emails show that this is what they have been trying to do well before 2012.
Even Stalin didn’t think that over 95% was believable
Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Mugabe et al aborted the deniers to sustain a semblance of consensus. The Earth is flat, not limited to climate model viability.
When you first refuse to publish anything that disagrees with your narrative, then use the published body of work to say the narrative is right, only means you control the publishers. It would be a lot like standing under a street light for 24 hours and then claiming night isn’t dark because you could see light the whole time.
It used to be a consensus (and is still scientifically factual) that there are two genders. Now you can lose your job and be charged with a crime for using a pronoun wrong.
They are probably pissed that the dissenting 0.1% got published, too.
Two genders: masculine and feminine, sex (male and female)-correlated physical and mental (e.g. sexual orientation) attributes. And a minority transgender (i.e. state or process of divergence from normal) spectrum a la anthropogenic climate forcings.
Four out of five dentists agree — science isn’t determined by concensus.
No it’s 9 out of 10 doctors agree if you don’t eat sunblest bread you will get squashed by elephants
While I don’t disagree that (1) it’s difficult to publish of your research doesn’t support the global warming narrative due to ideological bias by editors and reviewers, and (2) over the last 20 years it has been exceedingly difficult to get a PhD in a science that would provide sufficient credibility to allow you to publish in climate journals, thus boasing the entire field of research….
….I would argue the paper methodology is flawed not just because the key word search might not be effective, but because they only worked to identify articles that openly stated the authors are skeptical of AGW — quite a feat in itself — while many articles might well have presented data and analysis that clearly counters or weakens the AGW theory without making a statement to that effect. AND MOSTLY because they then ASSUMED ALL the other articles clearly agreed that AGW is real and meaningful….how do they know that if they did not read that in so many words in each of the remaining 87,00…oh, never mind.
Cornell should be embarrassed beyond words. This work is so sloppy that any undergraduate in the sciences should be able to make that assessment.
Anybody else notice the first author is a journalist, not a scientist? (Mark Lynas – Wikipedia)
Not saying a non-scientist can’t have an informed opinion. WUWT refutes that contention, so don’t say that’s what I’m arguing. Journalists have a terrible track-record of mistating environmental issues, misframing them and ignoring dissenting views.
JournoLism has been established as a front for social and economic advocacy. A consensus of special and peculiar interests a la environmentalism, etc.
88,000 peer reviewed papers in 8 years. That’s 11,000 per year on average. Almost all apparently being research into the cause of climate change and concluding based of sufficient evidence to pass peer review that our burning fossil fuels is the cause. Hmm, minimal funding for virtually any publishable academic study is what, $100,000? That’s $1.1 Billion a year $8.8 Billion since 2012 to prove what was considered settled science back in the 1990s. That’s insane. The people funding these studies are wasting a lot of tax payer money and the people writ8ng these papers are ripping all of us off. Either that or this new paper is just plain bogus crap.
Oops, looks like the average research grant is more like $400,000-500,000. So the water money is around $40 billion.
“Almost all apparently being research into the cause of climate change and concluding based of sufficient evidence to pass peer review that our burning fossil fuels is the cause.”
No, that ship’s sailed. It has been demonstrated decades ago that AGW is the predominant cause of most of the anomalous modern climactic trends. These papers are largely increasingly granular attempts to explain changes over shorter periods, and/or smaller geographic areas. Also to sharpen individual GHG and natural forcings. Also to look at natural reactions to those modern climactic trends..
All climate events can be completely explained with natural processes and phenomena. Anthropogenic forcings affect a limited frame of reference, and while CO2 is a forcing in the laboratory, it is a first-order forcing of greening in the wild, and a lagging indicator of warming.
How dare you try to refute the sacred models using mere data.
So tell me oilybob, when did natural climate change stop and human caused climate change start? Just curious.
Apparently the models are unable to recreate the present warming without adding CO2. So that proves that CO2 is the cause of warming since 1950.
The fact that the models can’t replicate the warming prior to 1950, with or without CO2 just isn’t relevant.
Decades ago?
You mean during the ice age scare?
Or you mean Hansens predictions that were 100% shit.
Or Manns mixing of satellite data with tree ring data ?
To begin with no such thing has been demonstrated.
Beyond that, there is nothing anomalous is happening in the modern climate.
Two lies in your first sentence. You are going for a record.
You’re lying. No such demonstration has been made, or, otherwise no sane or honest government would waste money on redundant research papers instead of investing in real mitigation and protection actions.
More like 88,000 that did not explicitly and overtly reject the CAGW theme.
The odds are that the vast majority of those papers did not address global warming in any way, shape or form.
”case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change,” said Mark Lynas.
So let me get this right. The climate was changing before the use of fossil fuels. But with the advent of fossil fuels, natural climate change stopped and humans took it over. Rrrright, so ”any meaningful discussion” about why this is so is case is closed??? And people wonder why there is scepticism to this new religion.
Why do they need so many? Only 1 paper is needed if it is correct.
(paraphrased from Einstein)
You people just do not understand how this works…if you are making up numbers you get to pick any number you want. It doesn’t have to be supported by any facts because it’s made up.
Kind of like AGW – just make up anything you want to support your view and make certain to “cancel” anybody who disagrees.
I am so canceled I am surprised I still show up in a mirror. 😀