Humans are likely causing some warming, but substantial scientific disagreement exists on whether there will be significant impacts
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (November 8, 2022) – A new poll of scientists conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that only 59 percent of respondents think global climate change will cause “significant harm” to the “living conditions for people alive today.” That is far short of the “97 percent consensus” narrative pushed by climate alarmists and their media allies across the globe.
The survey, conducted in September and October 2022 by Fairleigh Dickinson University and commissioned by The Heartland Institute, polled only professionals and academics who held at least a bachelor’s degree in the fields of meteorology, climatology, physics, geology, and hydrology.
The key question of the survey asked: “In your judgement, what will be the overall impact of global climate change on living conditions for people alive today, across the globe?” Fifty-nine percent said “significant harm.” Thirty-nine percent said either “significant improvement,” “slight improvement,” “no change,” or “slight harm.” Two percent were not sure.
Among respondents with the most experience – those at least 50-years-old – less than half expect significant harm for people alive today. Scientists 30-years-old and younger were the only age group for which more than 60 percent expect significant harm.
Like prior surveys of scientists, the new poll shows the vast majority of scientists agree the planet is warming. On average, respondents attributed 75 percent of recent warming to human activity. More importantly, scientists disagree among themselves on whether future warming will be much of a problem.
The poll also found only 41 percent of respondents believe there has been a significant increase in the frequency of severe weather events. The majority say there has been no change or only a slight increase.
In reality, objective data show hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, drought, and other extreme weather events have become less frequent in recent decades.
“The scientific method requires that we engage in science by testing and analyzing theories according to objective data rather than asking for a show of hands,” said James Taylor, president of The Heartland Institute, who speaks often in the media and in testimony before legislators. “However, to the extent people are curious about what other scientists believe, there is substantial disagreement among scientists themselves regarding whether climate change poses serious threats, or even merely significant ones.
“This newest survey destroys the oft-repeated propaganda that 97 percent of the world’s scientists believe climate change is a serious problem requiring immediate action,” Taylor added.
“While the media and climate advocates claim that there is a ‘97 percent consensus’ on climate change, this poll illustrates that there is less consensus and a broader scope of differing opinion,” said Heartland Institute Senior Fellow Anthony Watts. “Climate change is almost always framed as something bad, this poll finds 30 percent said climate change will produce only ‘slight harm’ to our standard of living and eight percent stated they believe our standard of living will improve or remain unchanged due to climate change.
“Just 44 percent of scientists over 50-years-old believe climate change will reduce our standard of living in our lifetimes,” Watts added. “Further, they were unconvinced that severe weather events have increased, at just 38 percent. The results suggest that the draconian solutions such as net-zero being pushed by the left, even if they actually worked, are aimed at a non-problem.”
“This survey, once again, explodes the myth that 97 percent of climate scientists believe humans are causing catastrophic climate change,” said H. Sterling Burnett, director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute. “Although, on average, most respondents attributed 75 percent of recent warming to human activity, nearly 40 percent of those surveyed said they believe climate change will cause only slight harm, no harm, or even improve living conditions.
“So, climate change? Yes. Humans responsible for most of it? The poll says, ‘yes.’ Catastrophe? No agreement,” Burnett said. “Interestingly, it seems the more experience one has as a researcher the more skeptical one becomes of extreme climate claims, with less than half of those surveyed who were 50 or older believing either that humans were responsible for the vast majority of climate change or that climate change threatens significant harm to those living today.
“It seems, years of indoctrination have succeeded in brain washing younger, less experienced climate scientists into believing, data to the contrary, that humans are causing a climate catastrophe,” Burnett added.
“This survey shows that, at least among those surveyed, there is a correct consensus belief that the Earth’s climate does in fact change, but it’s clear that the science on attribution to human causes, or the severity of impact, is not quite settled,” said Heartland Institute Research Fellow Linnea Lueken. “This is good news, and there should be a robust and enthusiastic debate without fear of losing funding or career prospects; no perspective can be ignored outright without testing. It is particularly notable that some scientists surveyed believe that there are increases in extreme weather events like hurricanes, despite the fact that data show that is not the case.
“To me, this result indicates that many opinions are being influenced not by scientific data, but by sensationalist media coverage,” she added. “Scientists are, after all, human like the rest of us, and are just as susceptible to bias and non-scientific propaganda as anyone else.”
The Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank founded in 1984, is one of the world’s leading organizations promoting the work of scientists who are skeptical that human activity is causing a climate crisis.
Heartland has hosted 14 International Conferences on Climate Change attended by thousands since 2008 – and is hosting the 15th International Conference on Climate Change in Orlando, Florida on February 24-25.
Heartland has also published the six-volume Climate Change Reconsidered series by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, and for 21 years has published Environment and Climate News. Heartland has published several popular books and studies on the climate, including Corrupted Climate Stations: The Official U.S. Temperature Record Remains Fatally Flawed (2022), Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming (2015), and Seven Theories of Climate Change (2010).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
>> only 59 percent of respondents think
I am pretty sure that there are questions around climate which have 97% or 59% of the scientists answer in a certain way.
This question here, however, uses a wrong word. “think” needs to be replaced with “believe”, whoever came up with this question has a significant lack of understanding in regards to our knowledge and uncertainties around critical parameters needed to have a scientific answer to this question.
Which turns the whole study into anti-science, sorry.
Not worth the paper this thing is printed on!
If you are a skeptic, I believe you should be particularly critical of other skeptical work.
97% is it derived from a barmy Obama speech derived from Cook et al (2013) which is ‘multiply fraudulent’. Did I hear that the Queensland police took a brief interest!
O’Bummer stopped the seas from rising so he could own two oceanside mansions after he left the White House. He said so in 2008, but never mentioned his future real estate plans.
Ask Scientists when you are talking Science!
So what. Polling is not science. Even if only 5% , so what.
Well they would say that now wouldn’t they-
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/techandscience/increased-levels-of-co2-are-proving-to-be-too-much-of-a-good-thing-for-plants/ar-AA13Semg
“polled only professionals and academics who held at least a bachelor’s degree in the fields of meteorology, climatology, physics, geology, and hydrology.”
Oooooh dear!
Surely they needed to poll those with degrees – or experience, or at least opinions – in street pharmacology, drama, emotional oceanology, feminist glaciology, golf course management, creative writing and environmental journalism, gender differentiation in the leisure sphere, and other, wider and rather more inclusive subjects now – absolutely rightly – taught, or indoctrinated, at a school, college or university near you.
On your tax payments.
Then they’d get the right answer.
Auto
One should keep in mind that the 97% number has been demonstrated false many times.
As mentioned in the article, many people are influenced by “sensationalist media coverage”, not facts and scientific method.
A result that identifies they are not responsible scientists, no matter what their degree status is. That 59% would be far far smaller if those lazy gullible 41 percent are eliminated from the tally.
“To me, this result indicates that many opinions are being influenced not by scientific data, but by sensationalist media coverage,” she added. [Heartland Institute Research Fellow Linnea Lueken.]
The most cogent comment I’ve seen in a long time about AGW.
Worthless survey. Main stream media absolutely hates Heart land Foundation and survey participants have to identify themselves. And AGW debate these days is a blood sport.
When the terms consensus and science are used in the same sentence, and often paragraph, then it is a certainty that it has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics and the power and money that spring from it!
“significant harm”. Do they mean serious, or simply something measurable? Will this ‘significant’ harm outweigh the enormous benefits gained from FF?
“Believe”. Very good. This is where feelings driven science has got us to. I guess that’s why feeling like a girl when you’re a guy trumps biological science.
From the article: :ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (November 8, 2022) – A new poll of scientists conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that only 59 percent of respondents think global climate change will cause “significant harm” to the “living conditions for people alive today.”
How delusional is our climate science today? The truth is there is no evidence that CO2 is causing, or will cause, any harm to human beings, yet here we have 59 percent of “scientists” thinking there is such evidence.
This is just plain delusional. Not one of those 59 percent could offer sufficient proof to claim CO2 is a dangerous gas. They are all depending on the word and opinion of others, not on facts or evidence which they have garnered.
It’s mass delusion.
I choose not to take part.
These surveys never ask all the right questions to get the reasons behind what their targets are thinking. like have they always held these views and what made them change.
Also, the hip pocket questions, how much would you be willing to pay annually to help solve the climate crisis – or whatever.
You have to make them really consider their values, whats it worth to you ‘to save the world’?
Most practical geologists don’t have to compete for academic budgets, peer approval etc, so they would tend to be more sceptical of AGW and unwilling to sacrifice good money on bad policy like net Zero. It’s the academics that are supporting the status quo.
Even if I were a staunch environmentalist which I am, (a non-anti-anthropomorphic environmentalist…that is the more people the better!), I always know that I am being played by people who use argument by consensus because it is a fallacious argument.
Argument by an exaggerated consensus is a fallacious lie.
Fallacious lies are not motivated by scientific inquiry, they are motivated by power and money.
A few comments.
Most of these folks probably don’t have an in depth education in thermodynamics or radiation of heat. Most have not seriously delved into the math or dynamics involved. I know even when I was in college, there were things the professors espoused that were simply taken as a given because students had neither time or money to do independent research.
I have recently seen a reel on Instagram where a professor was covering some concept in fluid flow and a student proposed it was wrong. The professor jumped his case and told he should tell the author. So he did. Then the author confirmed the error and exclaimed that he couldn’t believe no professor had contacted him!
Errors do propagate!
The media has hyped the catastrophic outcomes to the point that a lot of under 30 crowd truly do believe in CAGW even though they have no idea what, why, or where. I deal with some younger high school teachers who truly do believe it. The media will reap a whirlwind one of these days when the prognostications fail to occur and rightfully so. The boy crying wolf story wasn’t born of someone’s imagination!
Lastly, following Geoff’s lead I am embarking on finding how temperature changes are made. My preliminary work tells me that database changes go no lower than daily averages and some are at the monthly or higher level. That means changes are being made based on entirely subjective decisions. No investigations to the actual recorded temperatures is being done and no corrections to those temperature recordings are ever made. That basically means the changes aren’t based on science but instead are based on what someone thinks the average should be.
Nick Stokes could probably verify this in a heartbeat, but I don’t expect any comment one way or the other.
“Humans are likely causing some warming,…”
A statement with no scientific basis. And which concedes the ground to alarmists, extremists, and charlatans.
This really is an old chestnut. Still has no credibility. Disappointing that it’s still given oxygen.
Spot on ! Human activity does not cause the earth’s climate to change.
Since the 70s and the 80s when this nonsense first appeared (first the coming ice age and then the coming global warming) all the zealous alarmists have ever said is that “the evidence is overwhelming” yet they never provide any. Decades of this same ridiculous dissembling and yet they persist undeterred. What do these younger people with science degrees see that makes them think there’s even a climate situation occurring let alone one that is an existential threat? The actual existential threat comes from people like them that are pushing the incredibly ecologically destructive renewable energy technologies as the answer to solving a problem that doesn’t exist.