Climate Change: This Should End “97% Consensus” Myth For Good

Notice how even though the “climate emergency” narrative is ramping up again, the MSM seem to have fallen quiet on the formerly much-touted claim of 97% consensus by Climatologists that human activity is the primary driver?

We have addressed the topic in the past, and established the fact that the claim was based on a 2013 study by “Australian scientist” John Cook. Things get suspicious when we understand that this study was a survey of approximately 12000 papers. The papers themselves, however, weren’t actually read for context. It was only the abstracts (summaries) of those peer-reviewed papers that were studied. A fact that caused many of the authors involved to later complain that their words had been taken out of context.

Of the approx. 12000 abstracts surveyed, only about 4000 mentioned human activity as a factor in climate change. So already “97%” has become “97%” of 33%”.

But that’s just the start. We are clearly not dealing with individuals here, but scientific papers. Since we know that most such papers are collaborations and that some scientists are very prolific writers while others are busy with other matters, these papers could represent multiple works by a relatively small group of authors. We just don’t know.

To muddy the claim further, the 97% claim rests on;

“.. a 2013 study of nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, of which just over 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. Of these, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

What isn’t established is how many abstracts agreed explicitly, and how many “implied” and exactly how was this implication established? Again, many authors have in the meantime claimed that their words were misrepresented.

Let’s settle the matter. I was recently pointed to this statement from “Australian scientist” John Cook himself.

From John Cook, creator of Skeptical Science website, himself:

“This site was created by John Cook. I’m not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade. I did a Physics degree at the University of Queensland and while I achieved First Class Honours and could’ve continued onto a PhD, I instead quit academia and became a professional scrawler. Too much doodling in lectures, I think. Nevertheless, I’ve pursued a keen interest in science and if anything, found my curiosity about how the world works increased once I wasn’t forced to study for impending exams”. I had to chuckle when the introduction mentioned the word “Australian scientist” as to imply validation of the study which has been debunked by many who have shown in detail how a tiny few of the actual papers are the actual 97%.

Here is the breakdown that shows 64 out of 11,944 papers, or 0.5%, explicitly take the view that humans are the main cause of global warming:

1) Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+% : 64

2) Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimize: 922

3) Implicitly endorses AGW without minimizing it: 2910

4) No Position: 7970

5) Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW: 54

6) Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW but does not quantify: 15

7) Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW as less than 50%: 9

And yet, this study has been used by a multitude of MSM sources to shut down any discussion or question of the climate change/global warming narrative. It is behind the claim that “The science is settled” and that any discourse on the matter should revolve around acceptance of the scientific consensus. While the 97% consensus claim is rarely openly invoked these days, it is a claim that served it’s purpose and put the idea in most minds that there is indeed an overwhelming agreement on the matter.

It should also be pointed out that “consensus” has never been a guarantee of unassailable fact, only of current paradigm. One should recall the consensus held at one time that Earth was the center of the universe and that certain outspoken critics of this were burned at the stake for claiming otherwise.

What has changed? We are still “burning heretics at the stake” for daring to question the consensus, even when it becomes obvious that the claim of consensus is a blatant lie. let’s drop the censorship and talk openly and maturely about the real agenda behind the false and questionable claims.