𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝟗𝟕% 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐬 𝐌𝐲𝐭𝐡 𝐃𝐞𝐛𝐮𝐧𝐤𝐞𝐝

an X thread by Chris Martz

One of the most pervasive myths is that 97% (or sometimes stated as >99%) of “climate scientists” agree that virtually all global warming since the mid-19th century is human-caused and that this warming is an existential threat to the welfare of the planet and all life on it.

Except, this statistic is largely made up, and no matter how many times it is quashed, it persists as a talking point in online forums. Just yesterday, I received a comment, saying,

🗨️ “𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑢𝑠 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑠 97% 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑁𝐴𝑆𝐴?”

So, is this the same @NASA that lost 14 astronauts between two manned space shuttle launch failures in 1986 and 2003? Or the same NASA that recently enlisted @SpaceX’s help to get astronauts stuck in space back to Earth? That NASA?

Oof, that one is going to burn.

Sizzle sizzle. 🌶️

Anyways, let’s continue. . . 🚶‍♂️‍➡️

The “consensus of scientists” with respect to climate change is not organic. It was manufactured through questionable data processing methods.

When someone states the axiom “All scientists agree,” it is usually a reference to two particular studies, both of which were published in Environmental Research Letters (ERL): Cook et al. (2013) and Lynas et al. (2021).

Let’s look closer at these studies. 🔎

𝐓𝐇𝐄 “𝟗𝟕% 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐄𝐒𝐍𝐒𝐔𝐒”

The paper that got this all started was published in ERL in 2013.

🔗 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Led by cognitive psychologist John Cook, a Senior Research Fellow at the Melbourne Centre for Behaviour Change and founder of the climate blog, Skeptical Science, he and eight co-authors skimmed the abstracts of 11,944 climate-related papers published between 1991 and 2011.

Of the 11,944 abstracts, 7,930 (66.4%) of them expressed 𝒏𝒐 𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 on the cause(s) of global warming since the pre-industrial era.

Of the remaining 4,014 abstracts which endorsed either anthropogenic global warming (referred to as AGW hereafter) or natural global warming, 3,896 (97.1%) endorsed AGW. Only 78 (1.9%) rejected AGW, while 40 (1%) of them expressed uncertainty on the physical drivers.

So, the “97% consensus” was contrived by omitting 7,930 (66.4%) of the 11,944 abstracts because those papers did not explicitly state a position on the cause(s) of global warming since the 1850s or so.

That’s sausage-making. 🌭

But, what about the >99% consensus?

Let’s find out. 🔎

𝐓𝐇𝐄 “>𝟗𝟗% 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐄𝐒𝐍𝐒𝐔𝐒”

Like Cook et al. (2013), Lynas et al. (2021) attempted to quantify the consensus on AGW.

🔗 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

In this synthesis, 3,000 climate papers were selected at random. In that batch, 282 were marked as false positives since they weren’t actually climate-related. That’s fair. So, the analysis continued with the remaining 2,718 peer-reviewed articles.

Of those, 1,869 (68.8%) of them took 𝒏𝒐 𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 on AGW. And, like Cook et al. (2013), all 1,869 papers neither endorsing nor rejecting AGW were discarded. Of the remaining 849 papers that did endorse a position, 845 (99.5%) of them sided with AGW while four did not.

So, like Cook et al. (2013), Lynas et al. (2021) ignored over 65% of the papers selected that didn’t take one position or the other on the physical driver(s) of global warming. By doing this, they could artificially manufacture a consensus on an issue where none actually exists if all of the relevant papers were considered.

The advantage that Lynas et al. (2021) has over the former is that each paper was examined thoroughly rather than just reading the abstract. This made for a more thorough analysis despite the same flawed methodology both used in ignoring the majority of papers that took a neutral stance.

🧵 1/3 (Keep reading) ⬇️

But, wait, there’s more. . .

Climate activists often argue that Cook et al. (2013) and Lynas et al. (2021) were justified in excluding the 66.4% and 68.8% of papers, respectively, that did not express a position on the causes of global warming, on the grounds that those studies were not focused on identifying or discussing causal links.

But, that’s hand-waving. 👋

Not all studies that endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) specifically investigated the physical driver(s) of surface air temperature (SAT) changes since the mid-to-late-19th century. In fact, in order to qualify as endorsing (or rejecting) AGW, a paper merely needed to articulate a clear stance—whether in the abstract, main body or discussion / conclusion—regardless of whether or not the study’s focus was on physical drivers of temperature change.

You will find when reading through the literature that papers challenging the narrative—such as those on topics like climate model performance, temporal trends in extreme weather events and efficacy of “net zero” energy policies—will include a disclaimer stating that mankind’s carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions are the proximate cause of all global warming in order to pass through peer-review, as to not sow doubt in readers that climate change is an existential crisis.

As an example, a study on U.S. mainland hurricane landfalls might conclude that no increase in either the frequency or intensity has been observed since, say, 1900. However, the authors will include a statement, usually in the conclusion, something along the lines of,

🗨️ “𝐴𝑙𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑈.𝑆. 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑 ℎ𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑘𝑒𝑠 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑙𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑒 1900, 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑛𝑜 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑠 𝑜𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑒𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑎𝑗𝑜𝑟 ℎ𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑠 𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦, 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑏𝑦 𝑥% 𝑎𝑠 𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑒 𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑔𝑎𝑠 (𝐺𝐻𝐺) 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠.”

Another point I should add about Cook et al. (2013) and Lynas et al. (2021) is that neither paper frame their findings as being a reflection of the “consensus of scientists.” Thus, when people claim that 97-99% of experts agree, that’s not actually what these studies purport. Rather, the papers actually [attempted to] quantify the “scientific consensus” on AGW, which is a consensus of what the published literature says. That is very different from a “consensus of scientists,” which is essentially an expert opinion poll.

What’s more, none of these reviews address the big question, which is whether or not global warming is [or will be] dangerous. Just because our greenhouse gas emissions 𝑚𝑎𝑦 have caused most of the warming observed since the onset of the Industrial Revolution says nothing about the level of danger or risk posed by it both short- and long-term.

So, what do we actually know about what scientists think about (a) the cause(s) of global warming and (b) whether or not they think it is dangerous?

Thankfully, we have some insight into that.

🧵 2/3 (Keep reading) ⬇️

This is where things get juicy. 🧃

While a “consensus of scientists” (i.e., expert opinion poll) is less robust than a “scientific consensus” (i.e., synthesis of what the published literature concludes), one advantage that polling scientists for their opinion has over the latter is that it gives them anonymity to freely express their views on highly contentious topics such as climate change without having to fear losing a job or having their paper(s) rejected by biased journal editors (the gatekeepers).

Professional organizations including the American Geophysical Union (AGU), the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and Royal Society often manufacture a “consensus of scientists” by taking a very strong stance on an issue without first consulting the opinions of their members.

One egregious instance of where this has occurred is within the AMS (which I am a member of).

On July 8, 2022, in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in West Virginia v. EPA—which essentially limited the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from power plants—the former Executive Director of AMS issued a strongly worded “Special Statement” criticizing the Court’s ruling,

🗨️ “𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑨𝑴𝑺 𝒊𝒔 𝒅𝒆𝒆𝒑𝒍𝒚 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒓𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒃𝒚 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑼𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒔’ 𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒅𝒆𝒒𝒖𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝒄𝒍𝒊𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒅𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒊𝒕 𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒆𝒔 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒. 𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑐𝑦 𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑙𝑦—𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝑏𝑦 𝑛𝑜 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦—𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑆𝑢𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑡 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑊𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑉𝑖𝑟𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑎 𝑣. 𝐸𝑃𝐴.”

The letter continues, asserting without presenting a single shred of evidence, that,

🗨️ “𝑪𝒍𝒊𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒆𝒙𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒍𝒚 𝒅𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒔 𝑡𝑜 ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒… 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒏𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒄𝒍𝒊𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆 𝒐𝒄𝒄𝒖𝒓𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒏𝒐𝒘 𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒄𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒔 𝑤𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒆𝒏𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒔𝒆 [sic] 𝒈𝒂𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒑𝒐𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝒅𝒓𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆: 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑢𝑛, 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑒𝑠, 𝑎𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑠, 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑-𝑢𝑠𝑒, 𝑜𝑟 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦.”

🔗https://ametsoc.org/ams/assets/File/aboutams/statements_pdf/AMS_Statement-EPA-2(1).pdf

And, of course, this politically motivated jab at the Supreme Court was issued without the consultation of every professional member of the AMS.

I know this because we actually have good insight into what AMS members think about (a) the cause(s) of global warming since the 1960s and (b) whether or not they think said warming is dangerous.

In January 2016, Dr. Ed Maibach and colleagues from George Mason University (GMU) polled all 7,682 (at that time) professional members of the AMS on their views on climate change. A handful of questions were asked with several follow-ups.

🔗https://gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.com/CP/File.php?F=F_cRR9lW0HjZaiVV3

The survey had a 53.3% participation rate and there were 4,092 respondents (p. 1). 📋

Here are a sample of the questions asked:

1⃣ 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲, 𝗱𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴? (4,091 responses)

✅ Yes: 96%

❌ No: 1%

🤷 Don’t know: 3%

✦ [Follow-up, only asked to those who answered “Yes” to 1⃣] 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴? (3,854 responses)

🟢 Extremely sure: 58%

🔵 Very sure: 31%

🟡 Somewhat sure: 10%

🔴 Not sure: 0%

✦ [Follow-up, only asked to those who answered “No” to 1⃣] 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴? (53 responses)

🟢 Extremely sure: 13%

🔵 Very sure: 43%

🟡 Somewhat sure: 38%

🔴 Not sure: 6%

2⃣ 𝗗𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗼𝗰𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝟱𝟬 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱… (4,004 responses)

🔴 Largely / entirely by humans (>81%): 29%

🟤 Mostly by humans (60-80%): 38%

🟡 Roughly equally natural + man-made: 14%

🟢 Mostly by natural events (60-80%): 7%

🔵 Largely / entirely by natural events (>81%): 5%

🤷 Don’t know: 6%

❌ Climate has not changed: 1%

6⃣ 𝗧𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲, 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗮 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝟱𝟬 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀? (4,002 responses)

✅ Yes: 74%

❌ No: 11%

🤷 Don’t know: 15%

✦ [Follow-up, only asked to those who answered “Yes” to 6⃣] 𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗯𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁(𝘀) 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗮 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝟱𝟬 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀? (3,546 responses)

🟢 Exclusively beneficial: 0%

🔵 Primarily beneficial: 4%

🟡 Equally mixed, beneficial + harmful: 36%

🟤 Primarily harmful: 36%

🔴 Exclusively harmful: 2%

🤷 Don’t know: 21%

7⃣ 𝗧𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲, 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗮 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝟱𝟬 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀? (3,963 responses)

✅ Yes: 78%

❌ No: 5%

🤷 Don’t know: 17%

✦ [Follow-up, only asked to those who answered “Yes” to 7⃣] 𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗯𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁(𝘀) 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗮 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝟱𝟬 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀? (3,761 responses)

🟢 Exclusively beneficial: 0%

🔵 Primarily beneficial: 2%

🟡 Equally mixed, beneficial + harmful: 29%

🟤 Primarily harmful: 47%

🔴 Exclusively harmful: 3%

🤷 Don’t know: 19%

So, based on this 2016 survey of professional AMS members, of those who responded,

• 96% of AMS members agree that climate change is occurring, regardless of the proximate cause.
• 67% of AMS members agree that change has primarily been human-caused, but the contribution estimates vary considerably. 67% is far from a consensus.
• 38% of AMS members agree that the impacts of climate change in their localities have been negative over the last 50 years. However, 40% said that the impacts have been mixed or primarily beneficial, and 21% said that they weren’t sure.
• What can we conclude about the “consensus of scientists” on climate change?
• Is climate change occurring? ✅
• Human activities contribute to global warming in at least 𝑺𝑶𝑴𝑬 capacity? ✅
• All global warming over the last half century has been man-made? ❌
• Climate change is [or will be] dangerous? ❌

Thus, just because global warming is real and we do play some role in causing it is still not a good enough justification to rapidly eliminate fossil fuels from our energy mix. There must be sufficient proof that this warming poses a great threat to the welfare of the planet and life on it, and that has yet to be provided.

So, when climate alarmists [most of whom have no qualifications of their own] claim that I am standing at odds with organizations like the AMS or NASA, quite frankly, I don’t care.

It is clear from the survey results presented above that there is a greater disagreement among scientists than you are led to believe by what both the gatekeepers allow to be published in journals and what higher-ups within scientific organizations claim is the universal position among their members without first consulting them.

🧵 3/3 (End)

Here’s the original thread below.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝟗𝟕% 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐬 𝐌𝐲𝐭𝐡 𝐃𝐞𝐛𝐮𝐧𝐤𝐞𝐝

One of the most pervasive myths is that 97% (or sometimes stated as >99%) of “climate scientists” agree that virtually all global warming since the mid-19th century is human-caused and that this warming is an existential… pic.twitter.com/2YXEXwqcwF

— Chris Martz (@ChrisMartzWX) May 28, 2025

Editor’s Note:

Chris’s thread is excellent, but he is relatively new to the Climate Wars and doesn’t know about the precursor to Cook et al 2013, Naomi Oreskes’ 2004 paper, “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” published in Science magazine. It analyzed 928 scientific abstracts from 1993 to 2003. It found that none rejected the consensus on human-caused climate change, often cited as showing 100% agreement, though only 25% explicitly endorsed it, with 50% implicitly doing so. This study was pivotal in quantifying the consensus and bringing it into public discourse, influencing later efforts like Cook et al. (2013) to measure consensus percentages.