Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Russell Cook; According to a new study, the credibility of the alleged 97% climate consensus is so fragile, the 3% who dissent are completely disrupting climate action. And Naomi Oreskes is really important.
Who are the 3 Per Cent? The Connections Among Climate Change Contrarians
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 December 2021
Laura D. Young and Erin B. FitzDespite 97 per cent of scientists agreeing on anthropogenic global warming, the remaining 3 per cent play a critical role in keeping the debate about climate consensus alive. Analysis of climate change contrarians from multi-signatory documents reveals 3 per cent of signees to be climate experts, while the remaining 97 per cent do not meet expert criteria and are also involved with organizations and industries who make up the climate change countermovement. The data also reveal most contrarians to be aged sixty-five or older. As a result, we explore other factors (for example, collective memories and ideological views) that may have also contributed to expert and non-expert views.
Read more: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/who-are-the-3-per-cent-the-connections-among-climate-change-contrarians/A4664E239F0774A37C20FE03689B34DD
One eye catching feature of the study is the number of mentions of Naomi Oreskes. She is given absolute prominence in the presented history of climate science narrative – 17 mentions in the study. Other high profile researchers such as Michael Mann and the Hockey Stick controversy don’t rate a single mention. A significant part of the study is dedicated to claiming people who criticise Oreskes are wrong. (h/t Russell)
So what motivates the 3% to oppose the 97% climate consensus? The authors appear to suggest contrarians are ignorant and biased.
…
A total of 81 per cent of the climate change contrarians received their highest level of college degree (that is, Bachelor’s, Master’s, PhD, or level of degree relative to institution, location, and/or area of study) in 1985 or prior.Footnote 5 The most common time when contrarians received their degrees was the 1970s.Footnote 6 This suggests individuals receiving their degrees within the last thirty years are less likely to reject the climate change consensus. This pattern could be for several reasons, for example: new modeling or other scientific revelations not known at the time climate change contrarians received their degree; changes in how certain areas (for example, meteorology) approach research; or, as we suggest later, the impact of conservatism/neoliberalism on views of science and/or government
…
Discussion
What motivates experts and non-experts alike to pursue a position on climate change contrary to scientific consensus? The role of conservative politics, conservative think tanks, and industry efforts that make up the CCCM is well documented; however, our findings reveal other similarities among contrarians worthy of consideration.
…
Neoliberalism emerged as a driving force to oppose government oversight and regulation, largely related to backlash from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal policies and subsequent expansion of the federal government. While tenets of neoliberalism (that is, a laissez-faire approach to the market with a heavy emphasis on deregulation and free trade) would become central to CCCM objectives, the ideology pervaded academic circles far earlier (McCright and Dunlap Reference McCright and Dunlap2011a; Oreskes and Conway Reference Oreskes and Conway2010). In fact, while the ideology is most notably associated with the creation of the Chicago School of economics, it was not unique to just Chicago. Neoliberalism was transnational in nature, permeating into other academic and political circles with the help of several institutions established solely to push this ideology (Mirowski and Plehwe Reference Mirowski and Plehwe2009). As a result, by the 1950s, there was “an all-out assault on virtually every aspect of Keynesian economics” led, most notably, by Milton Friedman (Yergin and Stanislaw Reference Yergin, Stanislaw, Yergin and Stanislaw1998, para. 8). By the 1960s and 1970s, neoliberalism was a prominent theory within economics and other disciplines. As a result, much like collective memories pertinent to older contrarians’ formative years, it is reasonable to believe that neoliberal ideology would have impacted contrarians’ attitudes toward science and government prior to the emergence of the CCCM.
…
Read more: Same link as above
The funniest part of the study is the authors are both political scientists, who feel justified criticising people they claim are non experts for attempting to contribute to the climate debate, without having the self awareness to look in the mirror and question the credibility and depth of their own knowledge.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s that the climate modelers have no conception on how to validate a simulation. Their predictions are laughable and do not match the historical record. The models are clearly inadequate and are missing important little items like water vapor and solar contributions. The FAA would laugh out of the room a Boeing flight model that mismatched the flight test data as badly as these so-called climate models.
You are of course spot on. But the problem is that the model makers are not the brightest cookies in the tin who therefore do not understand that crucial point. They believe that their models are fine when you can ‘fit’ them to data by tweaking a few of the many fudge parameters.
I think they know, but cannot so don’t even try.
Models produce a tropical troposphere hot spot that does not exist in reality. Models produce an ECS twice observed. Models (due to computational intractability on relevant grid scales) must be parameterized, and that drags in the attribution problem.
Think of all the climate modelers that would be out of jobs if attempted validations failed—which they must.
It’s not just that the models use parameterization, it’s that the “parameterizations” are all over the map.
For example, nobody knows exactly how much aerosols were released during the 70’s and 80’s. Nor do they know the exact mix of aerosols. As a result each model maker is free to choose whatever amount and mix of aerosols necessary to make their models “work”.
If the “science” was as settled as they claim, and if the models were as good as they claim, then there should be some agreement in the “parameterizations” that are used in the various models. There isn’t.
There would also be only one model that everyone used because it matched observations.
Not 114 of them that are all over the place.
Mr. Istvan, you described the symptoms, not the primary problem
with climate models.
The primary problem:
Computer models “predict” whatever their owner’s want predicted.
Governments want predictions of rapid, dangerous global warming.
Governments pay for, and get, predictions of rapid, dangerous global warming.
The model predictions of rapid dangerous global warming,
support earlier pre-model predictions for rapid, dangerous global warming
that i trace back to oceanographer Roger Revelle in 1957.
There have been 40 years to refine the computer models for better predictions.
But In fact, the current CMIP6 models appear to over predict global warming
by even more than the prior CMIP5 models.
The one model that least over predicts global warming
is the Russian INM model. It gets no attention by being
binned together with all the less accurate CMIP models.
IT IS OBVIOUS that accurate predictions / projections / simulations
ARE NOT A GOAL.
The climate models are rigged to scare people about the future climate.
Government scientists with complex models
and BIG COMPUTERS impress many people.
I’m not one of them.
To me, climate models are nothing more than computer games.
Well said. I was trying a different tack.
“The FAA would laugh out of the room a Boeing flight model that mismatched the flight test data” sadly they followed the 97% and ended up with one plane at the bottom of the sea, and the other as scrap metal in a desert.
They don’t even match the historical record well despite being tuned to the historical record. How can anyone seriously trust an extrapolation of such poor fits?
All that stuff about when dissenters got their degrees…….. are the people who did this study just saying that it’s easier to fool young people than old? I’ll go along with that.
The consensus is now > 99%: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966
100% of the Politburo supports communism, eh simple?
Simple Simon proves that doubling down on idiocy just creates more idiocies
Simple Simon demonstrates that he doesn’t understand science.
It is really a non sequitur! Real science isn’t done by consensus. Consensus can act as a place holder for a paradigm — until the paradigm is overturned.
“Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!” Einstein
Just a complete and total lack of rational thought or logic. They looked at a random sample of papers and found that only a few were outright hostile to the consensus. They neglected to look at how many supported the consensus vs how many took no position, just assumed that all the rest agree.
Additionally, the people doing the evaluating of these papers, were not impartial observers.
All the people who agree with us, agree with us.
These “surveys’ also always start by weeding out anyone who doesn’t already agree with the consensus.
The consensus is now 110% !
Based on a show of hands vote, which is real science !
There are claims that some scientists raised two hands, rather than one.
However Jen “Baghdad Bob” Psaki dismissed that claim as a “conspiracy theory”
With a 110% consensus, a few scientists can later change their minds.
and the consensus percentage would still be at least 100%.
Who needs computer models when you have a 110% consensus?
Putin approves of this message
“The consensus is now 110% !”
Good one! I busted out laughng. 🙂
Wow only 99% and yet still the unwashed masses won’t support it.
Lookout Simon has gone full retard.
Russia colluuuusion;)
You are a moron
I ca’t help myself…
“by the 1950s, there was “an all-out assault on virtually every aspect of Keynesian economics” led, most notably, by Milton Friedman (Yergin and Stanislaw Reference Yergin, Stanislaw, Yergin and Stanislaw1998, para. 8). By the 1960s and 1970s, neoliberalism was a prominent theory within economics and other disciplines. “
It’s neo-Classical (more commonly referred to as monetarist), not neo-liberal. The Wikipedia biography of Friedman is quite decent, and summarises his achievements nicely.
As with most fields of study, there have been advances and retreats in the last half century, but the basic premises have withstood the test of time.
The main difference between Keynsian and neo-Classical economics seems to be the relative importance of fiscal vs. monetary policy, but both really act to maintain the velocity of money.
Being largely a social science, an unfortunate amount of personal opinion seems to come into play. Also, adaptive responses can make predictions either self-fulfilling or self-defeating,.
I don’t claim to be a strong economist, but my piece of paper says I am one. Some aspects, such as game theory and econometrics, seem useful, but many aspects seems rather dubious
This retired CFO (who doesn’t believe the 97% stat) says, don’t underestimate who controls the funding. In simple language — hypothesis doesn’t agree with Govt & NPO leaders, no research grant, no advancement in academics or govt depts. And yet, say the Koch Brothers fund research on climate, it is summarily dismissed because of the funder and the research is ignored, unfortunately by the MSM & academia, therefore causing fewer and fewer options for those that have a dissenting view.
Governments that follow the advice of Keynes, have ALWAYS ended up damaging their economies. Governments that have followed the advice of the Chicago school, have ALWAYS ended up improving their economies.
I edited a financial and economic newsletter for 43 years.
One of my favorite facts:
US economists, as a group, NEVER predicted a US recession !
Not one !
Favorite quote, “Economists correctly predicted 7 out of the lat 3 recessions”
This old economist came to realize early in his career that we really were there just to make weather forecasters look good.
You could lay all the world’s economists end to end, and they still wouldn’t reach a conclusion.
Well, I’m an old white guy who got his college degrees in 1970s (before the indoctrination began). The main reason I’ a contrarian is that I’ve reviewed the Climategate E-Mails and found the authors wanting in both professional and personal integrity. Of course, the fact that I have been trained in, and respect, the classical scientific method is also a factor, as is the fact that I took thermodynamics.
But, what the heck, I’m not knowledgeable enough to see snake oil being hawked.
One does not have to be a PhD ichthyologist to recognize when a fish is rotting.
I’m in the same category and
also took a thermodynamics course.
I got interested in climate science in 1997.
After one hour of reading I determined that
the “consensus” was based only on predictions
of the climate in 100 years.
I already knew next year’s climate
could not be accurately predicted.
Predictions of 100 years in the future?
That’s ridiculous.
I have always dismissed predictions, in general.
So in one hour I decided predictions of the future
climate were climate astrology, and i still believe that
24 years later.
A few years ago I started a free, no-ads
climate science and energy blog to share
the best climate and energy articles I’ve read,
as a public service.
I’ve had over 272,000 page views, and hope I have changed
a few minds about believing wild guess predictions of the
future climate. The current climate is wonderful,
and here in Michigan we want MORE global warming.
A fool’s brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry. Hence University education – G. B. Shaw
But that same George Shaw was a great admirer and defender of Joseph Stalin and full of praise about the blessing he was for the USSR. All at the hight of the Holodomor in Ukraine.
I didn’t know that which does destroy the value of anything he says, although he can still come out with some truth.
Yes and the person that genuinely went to report on the Holodomor, contradicting the official whitewashed version a Welshman Gareth JONES came to a sticky end.
Climate Gate 1 & 2 emails leaked before the IPCC Copenhagen Conference, “scientists” exchanging thoughts on how to create a climate emergency model and get away with it.
Are they scientists or are they politicians pretending to be scientists? I think the latter are more common.
I’m sorry if this has already been said, too busy to read all the comments, but the 97% consensus is a baldfaced lie. How is this just forgotten, early onset dementia?
“How is this just forgotten, early onset dementia?”
It’s a tactic used by alarmists. They put out a climate change lie. The climate change lie gets debunked. And then the alarmists put out the same lie, and do it over and over again.
This is Propaganda 101: Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth in many people’s minds.
Lies are all the climate change alarmists have so they repeat them over and over again.
Nyolci dismisses the detailed deconstruction of the 97% claim out of hand with the assertion that the analysis has been “debunked.” He provides no citation or detailed rebuttal of the points in the deconstruction. He apparently is hoping that any fence sitters that happen to read his remarks will accept them at face value because he seems so sure of his claim. He is playing poker, knowing that nobody can force him to show his hand, and should they demonstrate that they are holding a full-house, he can just quietly slink away and remain anonymous.
The 97% number was from bogus “studies”.
And irrelevant — a consensus is meaningless in science.
In my 24 years of following climate science and energy,
I’ve never read anyone claiming humans have no
effect on the climate — no one SURE about that.
The so called “97% studies” were also twisted to claim
anyone who believed humans cause SOME amount
of global warming meant they FULLY agreed
with the entire CAGW fantasy.
I believe humans have some, unknown effect on global warming,
I also believe CAGW is wild speculation.
But when answering the questions used in most “97% studies”,
I would be declared to be a ‘believer’ in CAGW !
There seem to be two groups interested in climate change:
(1) Climate Alarmists who believe long term climate predictions, and
(2) Climate Realists who study the present and past climate,
and do not believe accurate climate predictions are possible.
or that the future climate can only get worse !
My only climate prediction has been correct since 1997:
“The climate will get warmer, unless it gets cooler”.
I’m still waiting for my Nobel Prize,
or at least an honorable Mention
In 2021, I added:
“Here in Michigan, I hope the climate gets warmer”.
“This suggests individuals receiving their degrees within the last thirty years are less likely to reject the climate change consensus.”
It’s called WISDOM, and older people have more of it while younger people have less. Wisdom is forged from experience. Experience comes from doing. The older you get, the more opportunity you have to learn and become wise as opposed to being fed a pure propaganda-diet while in college.
There was a time when people were taught at least a little critical thinking skills. Now they are discouraged from thinking for themselves, hence there is likely to be less wisdom on average in the future. A very discouraging thought.
“Scientific revelations”, well said! The study could find no better words to express the religious character of mainstream climatology.
The 97% believe something the data demonstrates is false. It does not matter how many people believe the false notion, it only matters that it is false.
The older crowd knows a scam when it sees it, right Mr. Mann?
Have these muppets not heard of CPD which is required by most scientific associations?
Also as likely is that they were trained to look at observations and experiments. Rather than gawp in awe of models.
https://www.icaew.com/membership/cpd
Of course it is the old guys who dissent. They are retired and can’t be fired or lose grants for wrong think.
Not sure that economic schools have much to do with it. Is Putin a Friedmanite?
Paradoxically, probably more von Mises and Hayek 🙂
Silly little things like property rights or the rule of law don’t seem to be a factor in his thinking, however.
Can we not just send Oreskes to live with the middle class in Venezuela for a year?
Assuming she lives, which I would fervently hope she did, her tune would likely be changed quite quickly. Or we’d know she is truly insane. It’s sort of a win win scenario.
So if you know the background to the magical 97% we of the 3% are in fact 99.07% on the skeptical side of the question. Having people who are political scientists do this wonderful study just goes to show that it’s all to do with politics and nothing to do with science.
Have to admit to finding this funny in that they think that when the real world doesn’t work how they want there are dark forces stopping them bringing in their peoples republic into existence.
James Bull
Who can be 97% for, reed this, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-14.pdf
Did you notice?? Keynes was listed as the Treasurer of the Eugenics Society. As such, he and all of his theories should be canceled immediately, (in accord with
sovietliberal practice)!By the by, the ONLY way 0.036% of the atmosphere can be the “control knob”for climate change, is when it was written into the models as such.
I am a climate change “contrarian”. I have two PhD degrees and taught statistics at the University of California, Riverside.
There is no 97% consensus on global warming existence, cause(es), or implications. Interestingly, there is no 97% consensus about very many things. We do not have a consensus on how, or why, even things like gravity work.
Moreover, so called climate science is not science at all. It is very sophisticated computer modeling which focuses on climate “forcings” All of the modeling has produced severely inaccurate results. The models do not +can not?) Take into account what effect clouds have on the climate in the long run. Not one of the models contains any information about the movement of the Earth’s magnetic poles.
Data used to explore the Earth’s temperature is also corrupt. Most of the data from the ocean and used in the models was acquired through the aggregation of ocean going ship data. Modern ships can better optimize operations by knowing the temperature of the sea water flowing through their systems. The data used in climate models is largely based on that error prone and inconsistently collected data.
Interestingly, virtually none of the models shows the error of measurements, nor how those errors of measurements combine together resulting in a large error of result.
I tried to get the raw, unchanged data from NOAA. They pointed me to published sets of adjusted data. After I explained that I wanted the raw, unadjusted data, they informed me that particular data is classified.
So, no. A 97% consensus does not exist.
One may hope that these ‘classified’ original data indeed still exist. Given the climategate emails I wouldn’t be surprised if someone has disappeared them. That, incidently, would constitute a crime.
Lucy to Charlie Brown: “Liberal scientist can prove that climate change is real”.
Charlie Brown to Lucy: “They can’t even tell the difference between boys and girls”.
Here. It’s over.
https://videos.whatfinger.com/2019/09/22/my-gift-to-climate-alarmists-climate-alarmists-debunked/
The broad and generalized statement that starts the paper citing a 97% consensus of scientists is patently wrong. Everything that followed was based on that false premise.
For example, in Cook et al 2013, the authors examined 11,944 abstracts of which 66.4% had no position on the topic of anthropogenic global warming, but 97.1% of the remaining 4,013 did have a position. The 97% consensus conclusion was not based on all of the abstracts, rather only 32.6%— not even half.
Doran and Zimmerman 2008 was even worse. They surveyed 10,257 scientists and filtered through 3,187 responses to end up with 77 respondents who fit their criteria. All but two gave them the answer they were seeking. They divided 75 by 77 to arrive at a 97.4% consensus.
Nothing, including all consensus studies, support the opening statement in Young and Fritz 2021.