Skip to content

The Fraudulent 97% Consensus

May 12, 2015

The claim is repeated ad nauseam that 97% of climate scientists agree climate change is caused by increasing amounts of greenhouse gases (GHG), and that mankind is the cause. Atmospheric CO2 being the most recognized such gas.

There are two things wrong with the claim.

First, science isn’t decided by a consensus, or a committee. There are numerous instances where the consensus has agreed on a supposed scientific fact, only to have it overturned. Galileo is the most well known instance where one person overturned an existing consensus. More recently in 1983, Australian doctors Warren and Marshall determined that peptic ulcer disease was caused by bacteria, which overturned the prevailing consensus at that time.

The Oregon petition has over 31,000 signatures of engineers and scientists, over 9,000 of whom have Ph.Ds, stating that greenhouse gases, specifically CO2, are not the cause of global warming.

While this is impressive, and turns the 97% claim on its head, it is still not proof that CO2 isn’t causing global warming.

Only the scientific method can make that determination.

Second, the 97% claim itself is bogus.

The claim has at least two points of origin.

One of the papers behind the 97% claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the website Skeptical Science .com.

Here is Cook’s explanation of his paper, “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

The initial problem with his statement is that virtually everyone agrees that the Earth has warmed over the past 150 years, so the statement has no particular importance.

Also, most people involved in the debate agree that greenhouse gases play some role in the warming, but not the main role. Most scientists who disagree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) believe the role of greenhouse gases is small.

Cook’s methodology is why the paper is bogus.

He took 12,000 scientific papers and had people categorize them according to how surely the paper’s abstract endorsed the global warming hypothesis.

For starters, this process was based on opinions, with no set formula for assessing how surely the papers conformed with the GHG hypothesis. An abstract is also not necessarily what a paper includes, or concludes.

The process also excluded papers by the same scientist, essentially cherry picking papers included in the sample. This means the sample was not random, an important aspect of any study.

For example, Dr. Richard Tol said, “Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

Dr. Tol’s papers were rated incorrectly, which, by itself would make the Cook claim invalid.

And Dr. Tol was not alone. Others made the same allegation. For example, Dr.

Nir Shaviv, said, “Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

Friends of Science did an analysis of the 12,000 papers, and determined the following:

“The Cook et al study data base has seven categories of rated abstracts. “

  1. 65     explicit endorse, >50% warming caused by man
  2. 934 explicit endorse
  3. 2933 implicit endorse
  4. 8261 no position
  5. 53     implicit reject
  6. 15     explicit reject
  7. 10     explicit reject, <50% warming caused by man

“Papers in the third category which Cook alleges, “implicit endorse,” in reality make no comment on whether humans have caused warming. “

With 8,261 of over 12,000 papers taking no position on the issue, it’s impossible for there to be a 97% consensus.

The Cook 97% claim is invalid, and is largely meaningless anyway since the main area of dispute is the extent that GHG are causing climate change.

Another earlier claim was made by Naomi Oreske’s in Science Magazine: “For the first time, empirical evidence was presented that appeared to show an unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming.”

Scores of scientists reported that their papers were not included or misinterpreted in Oreske’s 97% conclusion.

Her claim was also debunked, when science writer David Appell put the question to her: “On 15 December 2004, she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay.”

The constant repetition of the claim that 97% of climate scientists agree climate change is caused by increasing amounts of greenhouse gases (GHG) is misleading at best, and, in point of fact, is fraudulent.

Even President Obama has repeated the claim, adding that it’s “manmade and dangerous” … an embellishment on an already fraudulent statement.

The 97% claim is pure propaganda.

Pinocchio. Photo by D. Dears

Pinocchio. Photo by D. Dears

Using the invalid 97% claim to silence opposing views, is morally, and scientifically wrong. Perhaps, Pinocchio can attest to that.

When confronted by the claim, explain that it is fraudulent and has been disproven. Tell the person making the claim that there are over 31,000 engineers and scientists who have signed a petition stating that GHG are not the source of global warming, and while not absolute proof that GHG are not the cause, the petition dispels the idea that there is any consensus supporting the claim that 97% of climate scientists agree that GHG cause climate change.

* * * * * *


It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

6 Comments leave one →
  1. May 12, 2015 7:32 pm

    There’s another 97% consensus, the Doran and Zimmerman survey that deftly started with questionnaires sent to 10,256 scientists. The 3146 respondents was whittled down to 77 “expert” ‘active climate researchers, nearly all of whom gave warming related answers to these questions:

    The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

    The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

    I’m a climate skeptic, and I would respond the same. Note that CO2 is not mentioned. (It is a greenhouse gas, BTW.) The Little Ice Age, land use changes, data quality, and even GHGs are behind most of the warming.

    • May 12, 2015 7:41 pm

      Thanks for your comment. I think a quote from the article you referenced gives clarity to your comment. If not let me know.
      Here’s the quote from the article you linked to.
      “The Doran paper has been criticised by many sceptics in the past, where a survey of 10,256 with 3146 respondents was whittled down to 75 out of 77 “expert” ‘active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97% figure, based on just two very simplistic (shallow) questions that even the majority of sceptics might agree with.”

  2. May 22, 2015 10:31 am

    Most “warmists” would call me a “denier”, since they character attack everyone who does not agree with their ‘coming climate catastrophe’ fantasy.
    In spite of me being a “denier” (I prefer the term ‘unbiased analyst’), I believe humans have affected the climate in at least two ways that are unrelated to CO2, and probably more important. (The warming effect of increasing concentrations of CO2 must be minor, since there has never been a CO2 / average temperature correlation in Earth’s history):
    – Dark soot on the Arctic ice and snow, mainly from burning coal in the Northern Hemisphere, absorbs more solar energy than pristine ice and snow does. This would explain why most of the warming measured by weather satellites since 1979 has been in the northern half of the Northern Hemisphere, and

    – Building cities increases the temperature in those areas (versus green fields) through the urban heat island effect — concrete, bricks, asphalt, etc. absorb heat during the day and release it at night. That would explain why most “global warming” measured by satellites has been at night. In addition, rural US weather stations have shown half the warming measured at suburban and urban weather stations not properly sited by US standards (not surrounded by green grass, trees, etc.)
    The demonization of CO2 is political, and has almost nothing to do with science, since it is based on climate models — climate models are not data, and without data there is no science … not to mention that predicting the future is also not science — that’s just just climate astrology, used as a “boogeyman” to scare people and empower central governments.
    Anyone who thinks a mere +1.3 degree F. change in the average temperature from 1880 to 2014, based on very rough measurements, that are probably +/- 1 degree F., is a crisis, is not rational.
    More climate information for non-scientists at my blog:

    • May 22, 2015 10:46 am

      Thanks for your excellent comments. Hope you get more traffic to your blog.


  1. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #180 | Watts Up With That?
  2. IL FRAUDOLENTO CONSENSO DEL 97% : Attività Solare ( Solar Activity )

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s