The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

This “peer reviewed survey” was not a peer reviewed survey of climatologists. It was a survey of employees of petroleum and energy companies, specific to Alberta, Canada, and it was intended to show the bias inherent in those employees. Many of those employees had no expertise in environmental science (”engineer” could mean electrical engineer, for example), so it would be like asking a train operator what his/ her opinion was on spaceships. Interesting, and sociologically relevant... but not scientifically relevant. Here is the debunking of this “peer reviewed survey” for reference:

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/02/14/james-taylor-misinterprets-study-by-180-degrees/

It was not a survey, the WSJ is ignoring reality. Here is the source of the 97% number:

http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

12,000 peer reviewed articles were studied. The volunteer, cross-discipline team that studied these article included skeptics. They classified those articles as either taking a position supporting anthropogenic global warming, rejecting it, or being about global warming, but not taking a position either way. They found 4,000 took a position, 97% of which supported anthropogenic global warming. They ALSO sent surveys to the 8,500 authors of those 12,000 papers, and got 1,200 responses from authors, representing 2,500 papers. Those authors self-identified 1,400 papers as taking a position on global warming. Of those, again, 97% supported anthropogenic global warming.

So yes, the actual facts are the foundation for the often quoted number that 97% of scientists support global warming. But perhaps it should say 97% of RELEVANT scientists, so that people can’t just throw in employees of Exxon, petroleum engineers, etc. to skew the numbers.

Source:

http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

The 97% number is valid. 97% of relevant (i.e. pertaining to global warming, and taking a position one way or the other) peer-reviewed scientific articles support anthropogenic global warming. Similarly, upon survey, 97% of the authors of those articles who responded to request for survey, also support anthropogenic global warming.

The James Taylor article from Forbes, and the WSJ article, are both written by mouthpieces for big oil. Effectively, shills.

For background - I am a chemical engineer, who was a complete global warming skeptic based on courses I took and work I did in this specific field. I was not as convinced by the initial data (a decade or so ago) as others. Specifically, I was concerned (as were other skeptics) by “urban bias” - urban areas reflect more heat back into the air than rural areas. So air based thermometers in a city will potentially be biased data sources. I was also doubtful of the accuracy of temperature stations, and their consistency over 200+ years. However, other scientists with more experience and a better background had these same concerns, and undertook a study to determine how much bias there really was. They were complete skeptics, and yet, came away believers, because they actually let the data matter more than their own personal bias. You can read their study here:

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/skeptics-guide-to-climate-change.pdf

Here is the source of the 97% number:

Source: http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

Net net - the debate gets very polarized and politicized. Don’t let that fool you into believing either that a) the sky is falling or that b) Al Gore is making all of this up.

Climate change is happening, and we are causing it. That is a certainty. The impact is somewhat less clear, but at the very least there is a proven link between climate changing and coastal floods as well as heat waves. There may also be a link with hurricanes (studies are ongoing). And at the very least, it would be better to find alternatives. If we are lucky, they will come sooner rather than later:

http://www.solarroadways.com/intro.shtml

[Jim, I think we have a leftist troll here....]

Climate change is happening, and we are causing it.

Your last three post are nothing but garbage, quoting far-left funded sights. Nice try you leftist troll.

Your say you are a chemical engineer?? Where did you get your degree -- from your imagination? LOL

I have multiple engineering degrees (EE and CS) and a minor in math.

Did you ever hear of non-linear mathematics? You should be aware of the sensitivity of "initial conditions" on non-linear systems. I did a lot of engineering modelling in my career. What we modeled was orders of magnitude less complex than that of trying to model the Earth's climate.

With that said, I can only imagine the hubris of these fraud Climate scientists speaking with confidence that their models reflect "reality." The Earth's climate system is immensely complex. I know that most, if not all, of the models ignore clouds. These Climate models are mostly GIGO. I read enough to know that they fudge the data in order to get the "output" they desire so they can continue to receive funding.

AGW is the biggest scam ever pushed by the evil left.

15 years ago your buddies on the left were certain that the Earth was warming; their models stated such. Go back 15 years and NONE of the models could predict the "surprise" end of rising temperatures. They ranted on and on about warming, warming, warming....

When their lies wouldn't stick, they changed the mantra to Climate Change and to now, Climate disruption.

It would all be laughable if not for the fact your pals will destroy our way of life to fight an imaginary problem.

Over geologic time, we are actually on the low side of CO2. During the Jurassic period CO2 levels were 3000ppm, during the Cambrian period at about 550M years ago, the CO2 levels were 7000ppm.

Serious research has shown that CO2 follow temperature changes. Another thing your leftist pals ignore is water vapor, which is the most dominate greenhouse gas.

These "fraud" scientist push this scam for only two reasons: continued funding of their careers and/or to push the increased control over our lives by governments.

If you are a Chemical Engineer then you should know the very fundamental precept that there is no such thing as consensus science.

Have a nice day and please go back to the DUmp.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.