File PDF .it

Condividi facilmente i tuoi documenti PDF con i tuoi contatti, il Web e i Social network.

Inviare un file File manager Cassetta degli attrezzi Ricerca PDF Assistenza Contattaci



97 Consensus Myth .pdf



Nome del file originale: 97_Consensus_Myth.pdf
Titolo: 97% Consensus? No!
Autore: Michelle

Questo documento in formato PDF 1.5 è stato generato da Microsoft® Office Word 2007, ed è stato inviato su file-pdf.it il 09/01/2016 alle 10:22, dall'indirizzo IP 62.19.x.x. La pagina di download del file è stata vista 1569 volte.
Dimensione del file: 1.4 MB (48 pagine).
Privacy: file pubblico




Scarica il file PDF









Anteprima del documento


97% C ONSENSUS ? N O !
G LOBAL W ARMING M ATH
M YTHS & S OCIAL P ROOFS .
The “Science” of Statisticulation

To gain public acceptance for carbon taxes and renewable energy subsidies,
several studies claim a 97% scientific consensus on global warming,
implying that the human causes are all about carbon dioxide or greenhouse
gases; but a closer look reveals a lot of mathematical manipulation goes into
arriving at 97% - a psychological ploy that plays on our primal emotions,
‘herd mentality’ and fear of being the odd man out. Few people know that
the Dutch government has called for the IPCC to be overhauled stating:
“..limiting the scope of the IPCC to human-induced climate change is
undesirable, especially because natural climate change is a crucial part of
the total understanding of the climate system..” Not only is the 97% claim
faulty, the climate predictions of the IPCC exclude an estimated 65%
natural factor influence.

Friends of Science Society, Calgary
2/17/2014 REV
© 2014 Friends of Science Society

2/17/2014

Contents
Overview of Comparison Charts of the Key Surveys ........................................................... 6
The “Science” of Statisticulation .......................................................................................... 10
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 10

Consensus – What does it mean? ............................................................................................ 12
Human Impact on Climate – Range of Possible Influence .................................................... 14
Human versus Natural Forcings ............................................................................................. 14
97% Consensus? No. Not Even Close. ..................................................................................... 15
Method .......................................................................................................................................... 17
Results .......................................................................................................................................... 18

Surveys are Inconsistent with Academic and Scientific Standards ...................................... 18
Review of Abstracts Inadequate to Assess the Position of Scientist on AGW ...................... 18
On-line Opinion Poll Inadequate and Inappropriate to Assess a Subject Based on Scientific
Evidence .................................................................................................................................... 21
Unstated Bias of Authors ......................................................................................................... 27
This is Not Consensus .............................................................................................................. 28
Statistical Probability .............................................................................................................. 30
The Undefined “Consensus” ..................................................................................................... 30
Description of Variables ...................................................................................................... 30

Variables ................................................................................................................................... 32
Related Consensus Studies – A Brief Overview......................................................................... 35

Powell and Lewandowsky – Consensus or Mockery .............................................................. 35
Mockery as a Tool to Delegitimize those who Challenge the Consensus .............................. 35
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 36

Summary of Results ................................................................................................................. 36
The Kiss of Social Death .......................................................................................................... 37
Implications .................................................................................................................................. 41

Points to Consider ................................................................................................................. 42

1

2/17/2014

Table of Figures
Figure 1: Percentage agreement with IPCC AGW declaration and survey numbers .............. 3
Figure 2: Holocene Era 11,000 year Northern Hemisphere Temperature History ................... 5
Figure 3: Oreskes (2004) claims .................................................................................................... 6
Figure 4: Peiser (2005) re-run of Oreskes (2004) ......................................................................... 6
Figure 5: Doran & Zimmerman (2009) claim of 97% ................................................................... 7
Figure 6: Doran & Zimmerman (2009) Breakdown of respondents versus self-selected group 7
Figure 7: Anderegg et al (2010) found 66% "Convinced by Evidence" (CE) ............................... 8
Figure 8: Anderegg et al (2010) Breakdown of CE/UE in 100 Most Published/Most Cited
Papers ............................................................................................................................................. 8
Figure 9: The Cook et al (2013) Dynamic Graphic from "The Consensus Project" web-site ..... 9
Figure 10: A Deconstruction of the Cook et al (2013) ................................................................. 9
Figure 11: Factors that affect climate......................................................................................... 11
Figure 12: Human Impact on Climate - Range of Possible Influence ....................................... 14
Figure 13: Heliosphere visualized ............................................................................................... 15
Figure 14: 90 CMIP5 Climate Models vs Observations ............................................................. 21
Figure 15: Comparison of Results of Oreskes (2004) "Consensus" and Peiser (2005) Re-run 23
Figure 16: Breakdown of Doran & Zimmerman (2009) ............................................................. 24
Figure 17: Anderegg et al (2010) assessment of 100 most published/most cited authors ....... 26
Figure 18: Anderegg et al (2010) review of scientists by lists or statements of position on
AGW .............................................................................................................................................. 27
Figure 19: This is Not Consensus ............................................................................................... 28
Figure 20: Cook et al (2013) breakdown ..................................................................................... 29
Figure 21: Table comparing variables in the four main studies ............................................... 32
Figure 22: Cross-referenced table comparing elements of key studies .................................... 34
Figure 23: A visual comparison of the Cook et al (2013) Consensus graphic and Pac-Man ... 39

2

2/17/2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming is frequently
cited as the justification for the imposition of carbon taxes and extreme
climate change or greenhouse gas reduction targets “…to stop dangerous
climate change” (Pembina Institute, City of Calgary GHG Reduction Plan
2011)i.
At least 5 separate surveys since 2004 claim a 97% consensus, or in the case
of Oreskes (2004) – a 75% consensus saying “Remarkably, none of the papers
disagreed with the consensus position.”
This seemed to be a statistical coincidence that so many surveys could arrive
at exactly the same result. Upon closer examination, this seemed an even
more impressive claim since there are no common scientific constants in any
of these studies. These 97% consensus studies also claim an enormous pool of
1,000 or 10,000+ scientists surveyed. It is important to understand of those
numbers, how many responded, which were selected, what criteria, and
where they lie on a spectrum of “consensus” about the percentage of human
impact on climate…which could be anything from 5% to 100%. In fact,
Friends of Science deconstruction of these surveys reveals there is no such
consensus. [Figure 1 below]
Figure 1: Percentage agreement with IPCC AGW declaration and survey numbers

Surveys by Author
Name

Oreskes/Peiser
Doran and Zimmerman
Anderegg et al
Cook et al

Actual % Explicitly
Agreeing w. IPCC
Declaration
1.2%
2.38%
66%
0.54%

From a Base Survey
Number of
Respondents or Papers
Assessed
~1,000
3,146 respondents
1,372 scientists
11,944

Most people automatically assume that ‘consensus’ means “humans cause
catastrophic global warming because of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.”
Three of the studies do not address this issue – none of the abstracts
surveyed were written to address that declaration.
The Anderegg study is unique in that part of it is based on an IPCC author
base – however, the 66% “Convinced by Evidence” figure cited does not detail

3

2/17/2014

what form of human activity or ratio of impact they ascribe. Clearly 34% of
scientists do not explicitly agree with the IPCC declaration.
Of itself, the various IPCC declarations do not state that warming is
dangerous. It is in the many climate models that human activity is ascribed
as being potentially catastrophic; to date climate models exaggerate and do
not reflect reality.
The deconstruction of the surveys that follow shows the claim of a 97%
consensus is pure spin and ‘statisticulation’ – mathematical manipulation.
There is a substantial difference in perspective between those scientists who
think natural factors like the sun or ocean currents most affect climate – and
those who think human land disturbance, and human caused greenhouse gas
emissions; notably carbon dioxide (CO2) – most affect climate.
Ironically, greenhouse gas emissions are not the major obsession of all
climate scientists. Many climate scientists believe that natural forces
dominate climate change and that greenhouse gas emissions have caused less
than half of the 20th century warming. Even at that, the warming was
nominal.
The purpose of the 97% claim lies in the psychological sciences, not in climate
science. A 97% consensus claim is merely a ‘social proof’ - a powerful
psychological motivator intended to make the public comply with the herd; to
not be the ‘odd man out.’
Friends of Science deconstruction of these surveys show that there is no 97%
consensus on human-caused global warming as claimed in these studies.
None of these studies indicate any agreement with a catastrophic view of
human-caused global warming.
Further, global warming stopped 16 years ago. The global average
temperature rise during the 20th century of 0.75 °C was largely a natural
recovery from the Little Ice Age, 1400 to 1900 AD, that corresponds to a
period of low solar activity.1 The rapid warming from 1910 to 1940 occurred
when CO2 emissions were low and could not have caused the warming. Few
climate scientists see that as catastrophic, particularly since the current
global temperature is similar to, or possibly cooler than previous warm
periods like the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Optimum, when
Hannibal rode elephants over the Alps [Figure 2]. Likewise, there are also
benefits to increased CO2, which is rarely spoken about. Professor Richard
Tol finds that warming of the last century has increased economic output by

4

2/17/2014

1.4%, equivalent to $1.2 Trillion per year. The CO2 fertilization effect (CO2 is
plant food) adds $0.2 Trillion per year of benefit from higher crop yields.ii
Figure 2: Holocene Era 11,000 year Northern Hemisphere Temperature History

We are
here.

1, HadCRUT 3, five year running average. (Note: HadCRUT is a product of the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office
and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia)

5

2/17/2014

Overview of Comparison Charts of the Key Surveys
Figure 3: Oreskes (2004) claims

Oreskes (2004)

Agree

25
75

No disagreement

Naomi Oreskes (2004) claimed 75% agreement
and ‘no disagreement’ [left Figure 3]. Peiser
(2005) re-ran her survey in 2005 and found
dramatically different results. As shown below
[Figure 4], only 13 of 1,117 papers explicitly
endorse the alleged “consensus” on anthropogenic
global warming.

Figure 4: Peiser (2005) re-run of Oreskes (2004)

Peiser (2005) re-run of Oreskes (2004)
13

Explicit endorse consensus

Implicit endorse but focus on
impacts
Mitigation proposals

322

Methods

470
Paleoclimate analysis

Reject or doubt consensus
89

44

Natural factors

67
34

87

Unrelated to climate change but
include the words "global climate
change"

6

2/17/2014
Figure 5: Doran & Zimmerman (2009) claim of 97%

Doran & Zimmerman (2009)

Selfselected as
having
recently
published
on climate
(79)

Those who
agreed w.
opinion
question (76)

Doran & Zimmerman (2009)
relied upon 79 self-selected
earth scientists (qualifications
unstated) who claimed to have
published something on climate
change recently [Figure 5].
These were drawn from a field
of 3,146 respondents, many of
whom protested the style of
questionnaire on grounds that it
is inherently unscientific to ask
an opinion question, with no
scientific parameters, on an
empirical topic. The actual
survey numbers are broken
down below. [Figure 6]

Figure 6: Doran & Zimmerman (2009) Breakdown of respondents versus self-selected group

7

2/17/2014
Figure 7: Anderegg et al (2010) found 66% "Convinced by Evidence" (CE)

Anderegg et al 2010

472

Unconvinced
by Evidence
Convinced by
Evidence

903

Anderegg et al (2010) reviewed lists of various climate declarations and IPCC participants
and created a division of those “Convinced” or “Unconvinced” by the evidence (IPCC AR4
2007 declaration) [above Figure 7]. They found 66% were “CE – Convinced by the Evidence”
– but this does not describe to what extent or what cause convinced these scientists. In part
two of their survey, Anderegg et al (2010) reviewed the top 100 most published/most cited
researchers [below Figure 8]. They reported that 97% are “Convinced by the Evidence” in
support of the IPCC AR4 2007 declaration. However, this is not surprising because papers
that support the IPCC position appear to get preferential peer-review approval and research
funding, according to scientists whose work challenges the IPCC mandate to explore humancauses of climate change. Dr. Roy Spence writes, “I would guess today’s research funding
lopsidedness is currently running at least 100 to 1, humans versus nature.”
The “Climategate”iii emails revealed that climate journals are controlled by IPCC affiliated
scientists who tend to reject papers skeptical of AGW despite having good technical quality
but give only cursory review of papers supporting the IPCC position. This is known as
‘confirmation bias’iv in science. Many scientists do not see warming as particularly
dangerous; their views are rarely published or cited. In their study, Anderegg et al changed
both the declaration (to “tenets” – which is a belief or idea, not a definition or declaration)
and the term (Anthropogenic Climate Change - ACC): “(i)97–98% of the climate researchers most
actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers
unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers”
Figure 8: Anderegg et al (2010) Breakdown of CE/UE in 100 Most Published/Most Cited Papers

100 Most Published Most Cited

UE
CE
97

8

2/17/2014
Figure 9: The Cook et al (2013) Dynamic Graphic from "The Consensus Project" web-site

More recently Cook et al (2013) issued
“Quantifying the consensus on
anthropogenic global warming in the
scientific literature” claiming 97%
agreement and focusing on fossil fuel use as
a cause.[left Figure 9]
However, a detailed review of Cook et al
reveals that only 64 papers out of ~12,000
explicitly endorse the AGW declaration that
human activity/emissions are more than
50% responsible for recent warming [below
Figure 10]. Interesting to note that Cook et
al used Houghton’s 1996 definition which
includes other activities... “human
activities, mostly fossil-fuel use, land-use
change and agriculture”
Most of the papers held no position on
anthropogenic global warming.
Figure 10: A Deconstruction of the Cook et al (2013)

9

2/17/2014

97% CONSENSUS? NO!
GLOBAL WARMING MATH MYTHS &
SOCIAL PROOFS.
The “Science” of Statisticulation

INTRODUCTION
Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.
—WALTER LIPPMANN

“So the question is not whether we need to act. The overwhelming judgment of science -of chemistry and physics and millions of measurements -- has put all that to rest. Ninetyseven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data,
have now put that to rest. They've acknowledged the planet is warming and human
activity is contributing to it.” “ ... Nobody has a monopoly on what is a very hard
problem, but I don’t have much patience for anyone who denies that this challenge is
real. We don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society.”v – President Obama,
Georgetown, June 25, 2013

Since 2004, several surveys have been conducted that claim to establish a
consistent “97% scientific consensus” about the reality of dangerous or
Catastrophic Anthropogenic [human-caused] Global Warming
(CAGW/AGW).1
The essence of those who hold the AGW position lies in the declaration of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 AR4 Summary for
Policy Makers. The AR4 Synthesis Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) states
on page 5, “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures
since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in
anthropogenic GHG concentrations” where “very likely” means > 90%
certainty.
The more recent IPCC report states, “It is extremely likely that human
influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the
1

Also referred to as Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC-Anthropogenic Climate Change) or
global climate change (Oreskes 2004), (Doran and Zimmerman 2009), (Anderegg et al 2010),
(Cook et al 2013), (Powell 2014)

10

2/17/2014

mid- 20th century.” And states: “Climate change will affect
carbon cycle processes in a way that will exacerbate the
increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (high confidence).
Further uptake of carbon by the ocean will increase ocean
acidification.” vi vii
However, these statements do not describe what human
influence.
Despite claiming certainty and high confidence, in fact a
number of elements affect climate change. These are rarely
discussed with the public; these are pivotal areas of broad
disagreement amongst scientists. The impact of carbon
dioxide (CO2) per se from human industrial activity appears
to be relatively small when set in context of the other
factors.
Figure 11: Factors that affect climate

Solar Magnetic Flux – the
sun’s rotation fans out a
convoluted pinwheel of
magnetic influence which
is thought to variably
affect earth and its
climate as we pass
through these spiral arms
of magnetism.

Credit: Image developed by Prof.
John Wilcox from an original
painting by NASA artist Werner
Heil

Urban Heat Island – As

1. IPCC claims AGW causes 93% of last half 20th century warming, double CO2
causes 3 deg. C. Data shows double CO2 causes about 0.6 deg. C. Therefore, CO2
cause 19%, GHG = 20%. UHI+Deforestation = 50% of 30% = 15%

In this paper, henceforth a reference to the IPCC AGW
‘consensus’ will refer to the IPCC’s 2007 AR4 declaration as
this was in use at the time these surveys were done,
excepting Oreskes (2004). One should be clear – most
scientists do agree that human activity affects climate and
leads to some warming – but those activities include land
clearing, urban development, and GHG emissions from fossil
fuel use. There is no consensus on these factors, their ratios,

urban areas develop,
changes occur in their
landscape. Buildings,
roads, and other
infrastructure replace
open land and
vegetation. Surfaces
that were once
permeable and moist
become impermeable
and dry.1 These
changes cause urban
regions to become
warmer than their
rural surroundings,
forming an "island" of
higher temperatures in
the landscape.
http://www.epa.gov/hiri/about/index.htm

By National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration [Public domain], via
Wikimedia Commons
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/common
s/7/7e/Urban_heat_island_profile.gif
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AUr
ban_heat_island_profile.gif

11

2/17/2014

and whether or not humans can successfully mitigate their influence.
Scientists who agree that fossil fuel emissions do affect climate, may disagree
with the IPCC percentages of influence, time frame or the >90% certainty
ratio. Recent evidence even suggests the AGW theory of CO2 causing
warming may need to be revisited, as noted by Judith Curry Chair of the
School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of
Technology, in her Jan. 16, 2014 testimony to the US Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works: “The stagnation in greenhouse warming

observed over the past 15+ years demonstrates that CO2 is not a control knob
that can fine tune climate variability on decadal and multi-decadal time
scales.”viii

Consensus – What does it mean?
The on-line Miriam-Webster Dictionary defines consensus as: “a general
agreement about something: an idea or opinion that is shared by all the
people in a group.”ix
According to Joyeeta Gupta in “On Behalf of My Delegation...A Survival
Guide for Developing Country Climate Negotiators” x ... “Consensus is not
unanimity.”xi Gupta states: “Unanimity calls for explicit agreement of all
Parties. Consensus falls short of that.”
In connotative terms, ‘consensus’ may be confused in the minds of the public
as being synonymous with ‘unanimity’xii which Merriam-Webster on-line
defines as “unanimous – agreed to by everyone,” or as “majority” xiii - as if
there had been some actual vote on the topic of Anthropogenic Global
Warming by “all scientists” in the world. None of these are the case.
The range of opinion of most climate scientists on the fraction of warming
caused by greenhouse gases since the mid-20th century extends from 20% to
95%. This large range does not constitute a consensus; a true ‘consensus’ can
only be applied to a narrow range of opinions.
“Consensus” as applied to climate science, has its root in the IPCC. The
IPCC mandate is stated as:xiv
1. Scope and Approach of the Assessment 1.1. Mandate of the Assessment
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by World Meteorological
Organization and United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in 1988 to assess scientific, technical,
and socioeconomic information that is relevant in understanding human-induced climate change, its
potential impacts, and options for mitigation and adaptation. (Bold emphasis added)

12

2/17/2014

In reviewing materials related to climate change, the public may wrongly
assume that scientists are in agreement as well on fundamental climate
processes.
Scientist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. addresses the fundamental lack of clarity in
his statement challenging the American Geophysical Union’s recent
‘consensus’ statement, released August 5, 2013.xv
Dr. Pielke, Sr. asks the following:
1. What is the definition of climate and climate change? [Note: the IPCC

has good definitions of these; he is asking the AGU for their definition.]

2. What are the societal and environmentally important climate metrics
(e.g. a global average surface temperature trend; changes in ocean and
atmospheric circulation patterns over multi-year time periods; sea
level rise, trends in extreme weather etc)?
3. What are the main human and natural climate forcings?
4. What is the observational evidence for climate change?
5. What is the skill of the global and regional climate model projections
(predictions) of changes in these metrics on multi-decadal time scales?
6. What are recommended pathways forward to reduce the risk from
climate, including changes in climate over time?
It may come as a shock to average citizens, that a group of scientists
dedicated to climate science review that guides public policy, apparently do
not agree on what changes in climate parameters are important for setting
public policy. Likewise, without clear definitions of a range of opinions on the
effects of human activities, no ‘consensus’ can be said to exist.

13

2/17/2014

Figure 12: Human Impact on Climate - Range of Possible Influence

Human Impact on Climate – Range of Possible Influence
None

5%

10%

25%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Humans are an
integral part of
earth; their
impact is a
natural
consequence of
their existence
and cannot be
separately
evaluated

“97% Consensus from 5% to 100%”
This ‘consensus’ has no reasonable parameters: “Humans have some kind of
undefined impact on climate, ranging from 5% to 100%. This impact may be due to
either, some of, or all human impacts and may or not be able to be mitigated.”

Consensus means agreement on a narrow range of views about something. A “97%”
consensus that relies on a range from 5% impact to 100% is virtually meaningless for
scientific or public policy purposes. The scope is too broad. However, such statements
have a powerful psychological impact on the public, who misinterpret these ‘consensus’
statements as meaning scientists are agreed that human impact on climate is
catastrophic in nature. As this paper will show, only a very small percent of scientists, in
very narrow fields of study, hold that view. Many scientists hold the view that human
industrial emissions of carbon dioxide have beneficial impacts on earth, and little impact
on climate.

Human versus Natural Forcings
Climate “Forcings”xvi are defined by the US National Academies Press as: “A
climate forcing can be defined as an imposed perturbation of Earth's energy
balance.”
There is no original scientific baseline of climate conditions, prior to man’s
substantial use of fossil fuels and the development of an industrial society.
This is one of the key challenges in assessing human impacts on climate
change.
Natural forcings are many and their power often immeasurable – both in
terms of scope and longevity. These include changes in solar cycles, solar
irradiance, heliomagnetic and solar wind influences on earth's atmosphere,
14

2/17/2014

volcanoes, ocean current oscillations, tectonic plate
movements, natural changes in cloud cover,
influence of cosmic rays, natural changes in carbon
dioxide and naturally occurring forest fires.
Figure 13: Heliosphere visualized

The heliosphere is a bubble of magnetism
springing from the sun and inflated to
colossal proportions by the solar wind.
Every planet from Mercury to Pluto and
beyond is inside it. The heliosphere is our
solar system's first line of defense against
galactic cosmic rays. High-energy
particles from black holes and supernovas
try to enter the solar system, but most are
deflected by the heliosphere's magnetic
fields.
"The solar wind isn't inflating the
heliosphere as much as it used to," says
McComas. "That means less shielding
against cosmic rays."
In addition to weakened solar wind,
"Ulysses also finds that the sun's
underlying magnetic field has weakened
by more than 30% since the mid-1990s,"
says Posner. "This reduces natural
shielding even more."
http://science1.nasa.gov/sciencenews/science-atnasa/2008/23sep_solarwind/

Some of these forcings can be measured or
accounted for as existing – but due to the
tremendous scope of influences and their interconnected effects, the long-term impact of any one
or any confluence is presently quite impossible to
determine.
By contrast to these, human influence is
measurable in some aspects, but inseparable as a
fixed or clearly measurable impact.

97% Consensus? No. Not Even Close.
The four selected consensus studies have been
widely publicized in the media. They are accepted
as ‘social proof’ (Cialdini 2006)xvii by many people.
The ‘97% consensus’ is widely cited by on-line
commentators as a reason for ‘believing’ in climate
change or global warming (terms frequently used
interchangeably by citizens). The National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Unpublished Ulysses cosmic ray data
show that, indeed, high energy (GeV)
electrons, a minor but telltale component
of cosmic rays around Earth, have jumped
in number by about 20%.
These extra particles pose no threat to
people on Earth's surface. Our thick
atmosphere and planetary magnetic field
provide additional layers of protection that
keep us safe.
But any extra cosmic rays can have
consequences. If the trend continues,
astronauts on the Moon or en route to
Mars would get a higher dose of space
radiation. Robotic space probes and
satellites in high Earth orbit face an
increased risk of instrument malfunctions
and reboots due to cosmic ray strikes.
Also, there are controversial studies
linking cosmic ray fluxes to cloudiness
and climate change on Earth. That link
may be tested in the years ahead.

15

2/17/2014

NASA Climate Changexviii web-site references these consensus studies,
clearly conferring them a high level of credibility as they are posted on the
same page as some 13 other reports by various scientific bodies. Even
President Obama cited the 97% figure in his June 25, 2013 Georgetown
address.
Ironically, a detailed review of the most recent ‘consensus’ study by Cook et al
(2013) found only 64 papers out of 11,958 that explicitly state that AGW
caused more than 50% of recent warming. This represents only a 0.54%
‘consensus.’ Furthermore, the 50% of warming referenced by Cook is far short
of the IPCC AGW estimate that AGW caused at least 90% of the warming.
Scientists have mixed views on this issue, contrary to the claimed consensus.
The previously quoted declaration was that AGW caused 50% of warming at
90% certainty, but they also say best estimate that AGW caused at least 90%
of warming, which is similar but different. Scientists’ opinions are their best
estimate, 50% chance could be more; 50% chance could be less.
A study by the Pew Foundation (Pew 2012) found that some 55% of
Americans think the science (on global warming) is not settled or don’t know.
Consequently, as noted by Ding et al (2011), xix it is important to gain public
agreement on climate change in order to enact climate policies, so the public
must feel that there is scientific consensus on the issue. Lewandowsky et al
(2012) concursxx.
Clearly these 97% consensus surveys constitute important social proof as a
means of influencing the public (Cialdini 2006). However, this insistence on a
97% consensus claim amounts to deceiving the public, since it seriously
misrepresents the broad and robust scope of scientific opinion.
Further, the fact is that consensus does not prove anything scientifically. We
are reminded by Huff (1954) that it is easy to ‘lie with statistics.’ Huff
cautioned us, even then that:


Misinforming people by the use of statistical material might be called
statistical manipulation; in a word (though not a very good one),
“statisticulation.”



Percentages offer a fertile field for confusion.... they can lend an aura
of precision to the inexact.



Any percentage figure based on a small number of cases is likely to be
misleading.

16

2/17/2014

Likewise, that three of four studies specifically report a 97% consensus
finding (with Oreskes (2004) reporting no disagreement - i.e. effectively 100%
consensus) would seem to be a statistical impossibility.
To assess the validity of these consensus studies, we conducted a detailed
review of these studies and some associated commentaries to evaluate the
claims of a 97% consensus individually, and whether or not there is
statistically robust evidence that the studies hold this consensus percentage
in common.
Further, we reviewed research on the psychological factors inherent in
ostracizing, public humiliation or shaming (Williams 2007) as related to the
link drawn by Lewandowsky (2012) between those who dissent about the
claimed 97% consensus. We explore research on how pejorative assessments
like that of Lewandowsky or President Obama’s reference to “I don’t have
time for a meeting of the Flat-Earth Society” affect public and scientific
endorsement of an alleged consensus.

METHOD
Four consensus papers were chosen for review – Oreskes (2004), Doran and
Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al (2010), and Cook et al (2013). The
Lewandowsky (2010) study was included in discussion of the review as its
premise relies upon the validity of three of these consensus studies.
A table of the following 14 common comparative factors was established and
data was deconstructed and recorded accordingly, per paper.
Evaluation of Factors
1. Objective
2. “Climate scientist” defined?
3. Consistent or inconsistent use of terminology or definitions about
global warming/climate change
4. Search terms
5. Source data-base
6. Depth of assessment
7. Reliance on prior authority known to be faulty
8. Bias or conflicts of interest unstated or not in full disclosure
9. Stated bias or conflicts of interest
10. Disingenuous or pejorative references to those who disagree with the
‘consensus’ view
11. Public objections by experts to reports

17

2/17/2014

12. Initial numbers reviewed
13. Actual numbers making up the 97% ‘consensus’
14. Expertise or qualifications of researcher(s)
Where possible, original source material was reviewed such as Zimmerman’s
original MA thesis and commentaries in the appendices, Prall’s (Anderegg)
on-line log of scientists, Cook et al supplementary materials (linked through
IOP – Environmental Research Letters site on-line.)

RESULTS
Surveys are Inconsistent with Academic and Scientific Standards
None of the studies can be considered to be qualitative, without bias, or
appropriately conducted according to commonly accepted academic, scientific
or statistically relevant standards.
There was no consistency of search terms or definitions. Within the same
report, terms were frequently interchanged. “Climate scientist” or the
research subject’s relevant qualifications or specific area of expertise were
never defined in any study.

Review of Abstracts Inadequate to Assess the Position of Scientist
on AGW
Two of the consensus studies reviewed on-line abstracts (Oreskes 2004) (Cook
et al 2013) and attempted to make a classification accordingly as to whether
or not the author(s) agreed with the “consensus” on climate change. But
what range of views is assumed to be the “consensus?” Oreskes referred to
the IPCC Third Assessment as described on page 21 of J.J. McCarthy’s
“Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability” (Cambridge Univ.
Press, Cambridge, 2001. Cook et al (2013) curiously referred to Houghton’s
1996 declaration; Cook assumes any paper that implied that humans had
some effect on climate is included in the consensus, even if the GHGs
referenced in the study are said to have little effect. This is nothing like the
IPCC’s declaration. Cook’s team also made follow-up calls to a large number
of scientists and claimed assent. Nonetheless many leading scientists
rejected the Cook study upon release, claiming that their work had been
misrepresented and incorrectly categorized as supporting the IPCC
declaration of AGW when their work does not.

18

2/17/2014

It is notable that three of 4 titles of surveys reference “the consensus” or
“scientific consensus” without ever defining what that is within the papers,
implicitly suggesting from the outset that such consensus exists.
Likewise, there was inconsistency in the search terms (Oreskes originally
claimed in her published paper in Science Magazine that her search term was
‘climate change’ – subsequently she reported it was ‘global climate change.’
This small difference may significantly alter the number and type of papers
found in the search.)
Pielke (2005)xxi rebutted Oreskes (2004) decrying the claim of consensus as
inappropriate ‘bandwagonning’ of a subject so complex and for not being
representative of the many diverse and robust perspectives on climate
science.
Oreskes wrote a chapter called “The Scientific Consensus on Climate
Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong?”xxii and also a power pointxxiii
on the same theme.
In the chapter, Oreskes refers to the IPCC, the National Academy of
Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical
Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, all of
which have issued statements that they accept that humans impact climate.
“By 2007, the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report noted it is ‘‘extremely
unlikely that the global climate changes of the past fifty years can be
explained without invoking human activities’’ (Alley et al. 2007).”
Can it be explained without also invoking the effects of the sun? These
effects are not considered in the viewpoints of the ‘consensus’ discussion. And,
are the various robust individual perspectives of scientists fairly represented
by such ‘consensus’ claims – the challenge of Roger Pielke Jr. to Naomi
Oreskes in 2005?
Evidence of the problems associated with this kind of ‘carte blanche’ survey is
clear in the more recent Cook et al (2013) study that was conducted by an
anonymous group of ‘citizen scientists’ lead by John Cook who originated the
website Skeptical Science, a website that advocates for the CAGW position.
Alan Carlin, Ph.D. Economics, MIT, Senior Operations Research Analyst,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Retired) rejected Cook’s classification
of his workxxiv and suggested the Cook survey may have been reverse
engineered to arrive at the 97% consensus result.

19

2/17/2014

Dr. Carlin said, “The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be
about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists
because the climate sensitivity factor (CSF) is much lower than assumed by
the United Nations ....”
This is a powerful statement that shows one example of how badly Cook et
al (2013) did the classifications. Dr. Carlin says the IPCC is wrong by a
factor of 100, but Cook wrongly claims Alan Carlin endorses the IPCC. It is
hard to be more wrong than 100 times wrong.
Dr. Carlin is not the only high profile scientist rejecting the Cook et al study
for wrongly categorizing work as supporting AGW when it does not.
Dr. Nicola Scafetta rejected Cook’s work: “My paper says that the IPCC view
is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900
to 2000 was induced by the sun.”
Cook et al (2013) did a follow-up contact with a number of members of the
survey to confirm their position on AGW, but as noted by Klein (1991) in the
“Humiliation Dynamic,” in light of the polarized debate on climate change
and intense public hazing of those who challenge or dissent with the alleged
consensus view (which has resulted in ‘climate rebels’ losing of funding and
employment) it is not clear whether those who told Cook et al that they
agreed they support AGW did so freely.
Return to Oreskes’ claim, “How do we know we’re not wrong?” Recent
evidence complied by Dr. Roy Spencer, climate scientist at the University of
Alabama in Huntsville in 2013, compared 90 climate model runs prepared for
the IPCC 5th assessment report to the surface and satellite measurements.
Both the satellite and surface warming trends from 1979 are lower than 97%
of the climate model runs.

20

2/17/2014

Figure 14: 90 CMIP5 Climate Models vs Observations

The only true consensus is
that 97% of the model runs
are too hot, leaving us to
question, what is the value
of computer models that do
not reflect reality? While
there may be a general
agreement amongst
scientists that human
activity and greenhouse
gases affect climate, there is
no consensus about the
degree, ratio or human
ability to mitigate climate
change.

The evidence, years after Oreskes’ assertion, shows the models to be very
wrong.
These 97% consensus surveys appear to be serving another purpose.

On-line Opinion Poll Inadequate and Inappropriate to Assess a
Subject Based on Scientific Evidence
The Doran and Zimmerman (2010) study was based on a 2 minute on-line
survey founded on two nebulous questions of opinion, not scientific evidence,
supported by 7 additional questions including one that asked respondents to
‘guess what percentage of their colleagues supported AGW.’xxv

Vast Number of Survey Participants Stated Does not Reflect Small, Selective
Groups Redacted to Create the ‘97%’
Oreskes (2004) claimed her survey base to be 928 papers and of that 75% of
abstracts reviewed explicitly agreed with the AGW ‘consensus’xxvi and that
the remaining 25% did not object – assuming “Remarkably, none of the
papers disagreed with the consensus position.” Oreskes’ statement about
‘consensus’ is that scientists in general agree with the IPCC third assessment
21

2/17/2014

report that: “In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that
the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth’s climate is being affected by
human activities...”
Roger Pielke, Jr. (2005) challenged Oreskes (2004) in a letter published in the
May 17, 2005 edition of Science Magazine wherein he noted: “...we should not
be surprised if a broader review were to find conclusions at odds with the
IPCC consensus, as “consensus” does not mean uniformity of perspective. ...”
He further stated “The actions that we take on climate change should be
robust to (i) the diversity of scientific perspectives, and thus also to (ii) the
diversity of perspectives of the nature of the consensus.”
Ironically, in Oreskes’ response to Pielke, published in the same edition, she
states “A full debate on the moral, social, political, ethical, and economic
ramifications of possible response to climate change – as well as the
ramifications of inaction – would be a very good thing. But such a debate is

impeded by climate change deniers.”

Oreskesxxvii chart breaks down with no direct refutations of AGW. However,
the lack of subjects refuting AGW does not mean there is consensus on what
the impact, ratio, or cause of global warming/climate change may be. Further,
the IPCC declaration is widely cited as the reference point for ‘consensus’ on
AGW – but many scientists reject that declaration as will be shown in the
following deconstructionist breakdowns of these surveys.
Pielke’s (2005) rebuttal disputed Oreskes unsupported claim of consensus, as
we will show herein.
Peiser (2005) subsequently reran Oreskes’ experiment beginning with a base
of some 1,117 abstracts and found only 13 abstracts that explicitly agreed
with the IPCC AGW declaration. As highlighted by the red box in the chart
shown below, most of the papers were unrelated to Anthropogenic Global
Warming, and only referred to the term ‘climate change.’ The next highest
category of “implicitly agree” does not detail the broad range of scientific
perspective; the papers stating natural factors were more influential in
climate far outweighed those who explicitly agree with the IPCC declaration
used in that survey. Two other categories of papers had no position stated on
AGW or the IPCC declaration.

22

2/17/2014

Figure 15: Comparison of Results of Oreskes (2004) "Consensus" and Peiser (2005) Re-run

Comparison of Results of Oreskes (2004)
"Consensus" and Peiser (2005) Re-run
500
450
400
Explicitly Agree

350

Implicitly Agree

300

Natural Factors

250

Paleo-C No position

200

No Position on CAGW

150

Unrelated to AGW
No Position on CAGW
Paleo-C No position
Natural Factors
Implicitly Agree
Explicitly Agree

100
50
0

Unrelated to AGW

OreskesPeiser
2004 2005

Doran and Zimmerman (2009) claimed a survey base of some 10,257 earth
scientists of which 3,146 responded. They claimed 97% agreement on AGW
but worded their questionnaire in a very tricky way.
Upon review it appears that of the 3,146 respondents, only 79 were identified
as ‘climate scientists’ (though no definition of ‘climate scientist’ or
qualifications were ever provided). Of those, some 76 agreed with the opinion
(‘risen’) in the first question: Q1: “When compared with pre-1800’s levels, do

you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or
remained relatively constant?”

23

2/17/2014

Figure 16: Breakdown of Doran & Zimmerman (2009)

Doran & Zimmerman (2009)
Those who
agreed w. opinion
question

76

79

Self-selected as
having recently
published on climate

3,146
Respondents

10,257
0

2

4

6

8

Pool of 10,257
Earth Scientists

10

The question does not mention any human-caused reason for a rise in
temperature, therefore it cannot rightly be said to show any consensus of the
IPCC AGW declaration. Most geologists would agree temperatures have risen
because since 1880 the earth has been warming out of the cold period known
as the Little Ice Age. The cause is the subject of debate, but the warming to
1940 could not have been caused by CO2 emissions because these emissions
were too low.
As noted in emails to Zimmerman from respondents, her question asks for an
opinion, not a statement of evidence, and has no parameters of time. Doran
and Zimmerman were assessing a group of earth scientists (primarily
geologists) whose view of time may stretch back eons. The main focus of AGW
is from 1880 forward; geologists reviewing the Holocene period dating back
11,700 years Before Present would likely see an overall cooling temperature
in earth’s climate.xxviii Consequently many respondents to the survey declined
to participate because the questionnaire was improperly phrased by not
including time parameters, and the survey relied on opinion, not empirical
evidence.
Likewise, the second question by Doran and Zimmerman (2009): Q2: "Do you

think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean
global temperatures?"

24

2/17/2014

The word "significant" cannot be quantified. The IPCC AGW statement is
that GHGs cause more than 90% of the warming. The IPCC declaration
singles out GHGs from human activity, but does not ascribe all human
activity (which includes land disturbance, urban warming and black soot on
snow, etc). Neither of the two questions mentions human-caused GHG
emissions, so neither can evaluate the agreement with the IPCC AGW
statement.
Nonetheless Doran and Zimmerman claimed a 97.4% consensus to this
question – based on a “yes” response by 75 out of 77 self-identified
‘climatologists’ (the credentials of whom were never detailed). This would
mean only 2.38% of 3,146 scientists agree with an undefined expression of
AGW.xxix
Excluded from the Doran and Zimmerman (2009) survey of earth scientists
would be scientists in other relevant climate disciplines such as solar
scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, astronomers and
meteorologists.xxx
Anderegg et al (2010) approached the subject in a different manner by
assessing authors as to whether they were “Convinced by Evidence” (CE) or
“Unconvinced by Evidence” (UE) of the tenets of Anthropogenic Climate
Change (ACC) as defined by the IPCC.xxxi This was evaluated by a review of
what type of public statements scientists may have signed. A contributor to
the IPCC report was automatically assumed to support the IPCC declaration.
This is an unjustified assumption. Anderegg et al further attempted to
establish the credibility of the various scholars according to the number of
publications on climate change issues in select journals and by counting the
number of times their work was cited.
As the “Climategate” emails revealed, the influence of ‘confirmation bias’ on
these publication results is certainly a factor for consideration. This is
supported by many complaints from scientists who support a review of
natural forces, and who challenge the IPCC mandate to examine only humaninduced influences on climate change. Their challenges are supported by the
Dutch government which has recently called for a restructuring of the IPCC
to include a review of natural influences.xxxii
“The IPCC needs to adjust its principles. We believe that limiting the scope of
the IPCC to human-induced climate change is undesirable, especially
because natural climate change is a crucial part of the total understanding of
the climate system, including human-induced climate change.”

25

2/17/2014

Figure 17: Anderegg et al (2010) assessment of 100 most published/most cited authors

Anderegg et
al (2010)
100
90
80
70

Unconvinced by Evidence

60

Convinced by Evidence

50
40
30
20
10
0
100 Most published Most cited

The Anderegg et al (2010) study was published in the prestigious Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), despite the fact that the
authors were not members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
Anderegg, the lead author, was an MA student at the time. PNAS accepted
this study as a ‘contributed’ article from NAS member, the late Stephen
Schneider. Any member of the NAS had, at that time, the right to submit 4
‘contributed’ articles per year of which they had to be part of the design, but
did not have to have done the research themselves. These submissions were
reviewed by two qualified reviewers of the contributor’s choice.
By contrast, the PNAS has a very stringent “Direct Submission” xxxiiipeerreview process that a ‘contributed’ article does not go through. However, by
the very fact of its publication in the PNAS, a ‘contributed’ article garners the
same high profile and assumed level of scientific diligence for the uninformed
reader, as a stringently, blind peer-reviewed Direct Submission paper.
Anderegg et al (2010) study also published a list of scientists as to who the
authors claimed were Convinced or Unconvinced by Evidence. A number of
scientists who challenged the alleged ‘consensus’ study objected saying that
this was equivalent to creating a ‘blacklist’ of scientists.

26

2/17/2014

Figure 18: Anderegg et al (2010) review of scientists by lists or statements of position on AGW

Anderegg et
al (2010)
1400
1200
1000

Unconvinced by Evidence

800

Convinced by Evidence

600
400
200
0
All 1372 Scientists

Categories of UE and CE do not
allow for diverse scientific views on
the ratio of human impact versus
natural factors, the risk (if any) or if
mitigations are possible, or
advisable.
Consequently, this result is
misleading.

Unstated Bias of Authors
Oreskes (2004) - At the time Naomi Oreskes published her first work, she
was a Member of the National Academy of Sciences / National Research
Council Committee on the Use of Models in Regulatory Decisions-making
2004-2007. This was not stated in her Science Magazine article.
Doran and Zimmerman (2009) - Margaret K. Zimmerman was a student of
Peter Doran. She took a short questionnaire of Doran’s offered in a geology
class and expanded the questions to form her MA thesis. The conclusions
published by Doran and Zimmerman in Eos, Transactions, American
Geophysical Union’s weekly magazine which includes peer-reviewed
itemsxxxiv do not appear to reflect the diverse results she herself reflected
upon in her original thesis.xxxv
Anderegg et al (2010) - This paper was ‘contributed’ to the PNAS by NAS
member Stephen Schneider. He was an early proponent in the 1980’s of
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as a means of stopping global
warming. He was founder and editor of Climatic Change journal. He was a
Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group II IPCC TAR and co-anchor of
the Key Vulnerabilities Cross-Cutting Theme for the Fourth Assessment
Report (AR4).

27

2/17/2014

Cook et al (2013) - This survey was done by a group of “citizen researchers”
but was largely driven or begun through an on-line forum of members of
Skeptical Science. According to Andrew Montford’s research, published by the
Global Warming Policy Foundation, using deceptive parameters was an
integral part of the planning of the research.
Montford cited the following statement taken from a Skeptical Science online forum during the planning of the Cook study. It shows that even the
planners knew that using this broadest definition of AGW would be a
virtually ‘pornographic’ method of garish sensationalism, luridly misleading
the public with its shock value:

“We’re basically going with Ari’s porno approach I probably should stop
calling it that) which is AGW = ‘humans are causing global warming’. e.g. –
no specific quantification which is the only way we can do it considering the
breadth of papers we’re surveying.”xxxvi
Figure 19: This is Not Consensus

This is Not Consensus
None

5%

10%

25%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Humans are an
integral part of
earth; their
impact is a
natural
consequence of
their existence
and cannot be
separately
evaluated

“97% Consensus”
Humans have some kind of undefined impact on climate, ranging from 5% to 100%.
This impact may be due to either, some of, or all – land disturbance (forestry, dams,
agriculture), land cover (urban heat effect from cities), creation of black soot from
industry, aerosols (sulfur dioxide or other gases or particulate matter (PM)),
emissions of Greenhouse Gases which include methane, carbon dioxide, etc.)

A deconstruction of the Cook et al (2013) results reveal a broad range of
views within the scope of his survey and not the 97% consensus
claimed…unless it is that lurid definition described above by Cook’s helper –
“AGW = humans are causing warming.” Dr. Legates deconstructed the Cook
study.xxxvii He also revealed that most scientific perspectives on climate
change do not include the view that warming is ‘dangerous’. xxxviii

28

2/17/2014

Figure 20: Cook et al (2013) breakdown

DeConsensus of Cook et al (2013)
8000
6000
4000
2000
0

Explicit Endorse AGW>50%
Explicit Endorse not
quantified
Implicit Endorse
No Position
Implicit reject
Explicit reject not
quantified
Explicit reject AGW<50%

64
923
2911
7983
53
15
9

The Legates et al (2013) xxxix review of the paper reveals that only 41 out of
the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that
Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just
64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in
fact supported it. The 41 papers that supported the consensus as defined by
the IPCC declaration represents only 0.34% of the papers examined, not 97%.
xl

The Legates review found that 23 of the papers that Cook claimed support
the IPCC declaration that - “Man caused most of the warming since 1950” - in
fact these papers did not support the theory.

29

2/17/2014

Dr. Legates said: “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a
paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis
the true consensus was well below 1%.”

Statistical Probability
Three of four studies cite a 97% consensus with the Oreskes study citing 75%
consensus and no disagreement by the remaining 25% (theoretically 100%
consensus assumed).
NASA has conferred scientific credibility upon these ‘consensus’ studies by
linking to them as their first reference on their climate change “Consensus”
webpage.xli However, when we examine the numerical variables involved, it
seems that even for NASA’s mathematical computational expertise, it would
be a statistical improbability that all studies could arrive at a 97% consensus,
unless there was significant manipulation of data.
None of the parameters are consistent within the surveys, in particular
neither the term ‘climate scientist’ nor ‘consensus’ is ever defined, so the
claim of a 97% consensus in one, let alone 3 surveys, is highly illogical.
The fact that the term “consensus” in not defined in any survey is more
important than the fact that the term “climate scientist” is not defined.

The Undefined “Consensus”
Description of Variables [Figure 21 below]
In the table below entitled “Variables”, the variable “Consistent or
inconsistent use of terminology or definitions about global warming/climate
change” lists four consensus definitions identified as T1 to T4 - meaning
“Term” 1 through 4. Each paper uses different terms. There is no scientific
constant of definition, therefore, how can there be “consensus”?
T1 – Oreskes (2004) The Oreskes definition refers to her paper in which she
refers to the IPCC 2001 TAR – Third Assessment Report.“… Most of the
observed warming.....” This declaration does not state a figure regarding
human influence. Oreskes also referred to various organizations that had
issued a “consensus” statement – again without specific a ratio or cause. It is
unlikely the abstracts she reviewed actually stated a number regarding any
ratio of human-causation of warming.
T2 - The Doran & Zimmerman (2009) definition says, “Human activity is the
major cause of warming” which is noted in their abstract and preamble, but
30

2/17/2014

neither of the two relevant questions they asked of their respondents said
that.
The first question asked of respondents did not mention human activity, and
the second question asked if human activity was a “significant” factor, not a
“major” factor. “Significant” is much less than “major”. Further, “human
activity” as a factor does not specify GHG warming from human-made
emissions so the Doran & Zimmerman does not correspond to the IPCC AGW
statement.
T3 -The Anderegg (2010) definition says, “…humans cause most of
unequivocal warming” but does not define a time period. “Most” is a
subjective term that is not defined. It is also not clear that Anderegg actually
used this definition to determine his consensus results; he referred to ‘tenets.’
T4 - The Cook (2013) definition refers to, 1996 Houghton – “These [warming]
trends can be attributed largely to human activities, mostly fossil-fuel use,
land-use change and agriculture” which is found in an IPCC report.xlii [Note:

The Houghton definition includes human factors other than GHGs.]

This definition is not related to the Cook ‘consensus’ classifications at all.
Cook’s 97% is based on the erroneous classification of abstracts where the
abstracts implicitly or explicitly suggest that AGW causes some warming, no
matter how small.
In the row for the variable entitled “Actual numbers making up the 97%
‘consensus’”, the Doran & Zimmerman column shows 79, which is the 100%
number of respondents to their question 1. Question 1 numbers of affirmative
responses are 76 out of 79, which represents 96.2%. Yet, the question is
invalid, as it doesn't mention human-caused warming. Question 2 asks if
AGW is significant. The numbers are 75 out of 77, which equals 97.4%.
However, the term ‘significant’ is not quantified.
Cook’s 97% number came from 3898 out of 3975 climate related, peerreviewed abstracts. (This gives 98 %.) He apparently reduced the number to
maintain a consistent report of 97% ‘undefined’ consensus.
Dr. William Briggs, Adjunct Professor of Statistics at Cornell University,
where he acquired both an M.S. in Atmospheric Science and a Ph.D. in
Statistics, said: “In any survey such as Cook’s, it is essential to define the
survey question very clearly. Yet Cook used three distinct definitions of
climate consensus interchangeably. Also, he arbitrarily excluded about 8000
of the 12,000 papers in his sample on the unacceptable ground that they had
expressed no opinion on the climate consensus. These artifices let him reach

31

2/17/2014

the unjustifiable conclusion that there was a 97.1% consensus when there
was not.”xliii
Figure 21: Table comparing variables in the four main studies

Variables
Oreskes
Objective
“Climate
scientist” defined?
Consensus
defined?
Consistent or
inconsistent use of
terminology or
definitions about
global
warming/climate
change

a
No

Doran &
Zimmerman
b
No

Anderegg et al

Cook et al

C
No

d
No
No

No

No

No

T1
IPCC
Third
Assessment
Report
TAR
2001

T2
‘Human activity
major cause of
warming’

T3
“humans
cause most of
unequivocal
warming”

Global
climate
change

[Earth
scientists – 2
main opinion
questions; selfselected
‘climatologists’]

Climate
researchers
(undefined)

Global
climate
change +
global
warming

Source data-base
Initial numbers
reviewed

W
928

Y
1,372

Z
12,000

Actual numbers
making up the
97% ‘consensus’

75% explicit
None
disagree
(±100%)

X
10,257 asked
3,146
responded
Q1: 76 out of 79
which is 96.2%
Q2: 75 out of 77
which is 97.4%

1,372 reduced
to 908 focused
on 4 most
cited papers

3898 out of
3975
abstracts*
97-98%

Search terms

T4
“1996
Houghton”
These trends can
be attributed
largely to human
activities, mostly
fossil-fuel use,
land-use change
and agriculture.

*Many scientists
publicly protested
their work being
wrongly
categorized by
Cook et al

Research period
covered
Numbers of
researchers
involved

10 years

N/A

N/A

21 years

1

2

4

12+12
Raters & 3rd
partyxliv

32

2/17/2014

The 3898 papers that are part of the alleged consensus include 2911 papers
that only imply human caused some warming, for example, by stating that
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. However, that fact does not imply that CO2
emissions caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook's ratio incorrectly
ignores the fact that 7983 papers took no position on AGW.
There are 4 studies (3 of which claim a 97% consensus rate). However, with
10 distinct variables, none of which are in common, what can be the chance of
reaching a 97% consensus in all four surveys even if all variables were
consistent. None of them are consistent. [Figure 22 below]
Based on the lack of academic and scientific constants in all of these studies,
it is an anomaly that NASA confers credibility to this unscientific ‘social
proof’ by posting links and references to these alleged consensus studies on
its official climate change site.xlv

33

2/17/2014

Figure 22: Cross-referenced table comparing elements of key studies

Cross-Referenced Table Comparing Elements Of Key Studies
Oreskes (2004)

Number of
papers & timeframe of
publication

928(804)
1993-2003
10 years

Search Term

‘climate change’
(subsequently
corrected to ‘global
climate change’)
1. explicit
endorsement of the
consensus position
2. evaluation of
impacts
3. mitigation proposals
4. methods
5. paleoclimate
analysis
6. rejection of the
consensus position.

Comparison of
categories and
survey findings

Oreskes: “Of all the
papers, 75% fell into
the first three
categories, either
explicitly or implicitly
accepting the
consensus view: 25%
dealt with methods or
paleoclimate, taking
no position on current
anthropogenic climate
change.”

Claims

75% consensus and
“Remarkably, none of
the papers disagreed
with the consensus
position.”
Challenged by:
Pielke (2005)
Monckton (2007)

Peiser(2005)
(reran Oreskes &
disputes her
findings)
1117
1993-2003
10 years

Doran &
Zimmerman (2009)
MK Zimmerman
(2009) MA thesis
Database of Earth
Scientists

Anderegg et al
(2010)

Cook et al (2013)

By publication &
cittions; partially
based on existing
lists drawn up by
Prall

11,944
1991-2011
21 years
Data

‘global climate
change’

2 key opinion
questions asked w.
7 related
parameters
Categories &
findings: 12,000
database of Earth
scientists sent a 2
minute on-line
survey

By publication in
climate science
journals

“global climate change’ or
‘global warming’

1,372 reduced to
908
Credibility:
focussed on 4
most cited papers

Categories and findings.
1. 64 explicit endorse, >50%
warming caused by man
2. 934 explicit endorse
3. 2911 implicit endorse
4. 7983 no position
5. 53 implicit reject
6. 15 explicit reject
7. 9
explicit reject, <50%
warming caused by man

1. 13 (1.2%)
explicit
endorsement of
the consensus
position
2. 322 (29%)
implicitly endorse
but focus on
evaluation of
impacts
3. 89 (<10%)
mitigation
proposals
4. 67 focus on
methods
5. 87 deal with
paleoclimate
analysis
6. 34 reject or
doubt the
consensus
position.
7. 44 focus on
natural factors of
global climate
change
8. 470 (44%)
include the words
“global climate
change” but are
unrelated to the
question of recent
global climate
change
Only 1%
consensus,
contradicting
Oreskes’ claim of
75% and no other
disagreement

10,257 pootential
respondents
3,146 responded
79 climate scientists
(self-selected)
formed the 100%

“Convinced” (CE)
or “Unconvinced
by evidence” (UE):
based on multisignatory papers
signed by
researchers

64 explicit endorsements out
of 11,958 is 0.54% Data

Question 1: Has the
earth warmed since
pre-1800’s?†

903 scientists are
CE (66%)
472 scientists are
UE

For Cook et al, “endorse’
means man has caused
‘some’ warming. This is not
consistent with the IPCC
declaration.

Question 2:
Is human activity a
significant factor in
global warming?†
Link

‘Credibility’ was
established by
number of
publications &
citations.

The IPCC claims >90% of
warming since mid-20th
century was caused by man.

Of the 100
scientists with the
most cited
publications, 3%
are UE. Link

Claims 97%
consensus based
on:
76 of 79 answered
‘yes’ to Question 1
(96.2%)
75 0f 77 answered
‘yes’ to Question 2
(97.4%)
Challenged by:
Ambler (2010)

97-99% of the
climate
researchers most
actively publishing
in the field support
the IPCC AGW
theory.
But only 66% of
climate scientists
support the IPCC
position.
.

97% consensus claimed in the
press releases and on”The
Consensus Project” website is
based on adding categories 1,
2, 3 to reach 3,932 of 4,010
(all remaining categories
except #4) – to claim 97%.
However, many scientists
publicly rejected Cook’s
categorizing of their work as
supporting CAGW when they
do not.
Challenged by:
Legates et al (2013)

34

2/17/2014
†The full questions in the Doran & Zimmerman survey:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have
generally risen, fallen or reamined relatively constant?

2.

Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global
temperatures.

RELATED CONSENSUS STUDIES – A BRIEF OVERVIEW
Powell and Lewandowsky – Consensus or Mockery
The most recent survey is that of James Powell (2014). Here we have a
contrasting complexity of science presented with the simplistic claim of the
broadest scope of ‘consensus.’ xlvi
Science writer James Powell reviewed the abstracts of 2,258 climate science
peer-reviewed articles published from 2012 to 2013 with the number of
authors at 9,136. He states in his paper that only one scientist rejected manmade global warming. He claims that of 13,950 peer-reviewed climate
science articles from 1991-2012 only 24 rejected man-made global warming.
He asks if climate change is man-made and states of the 33,700 peerreviewed climate change articles, only 34 reject that modern day warming is
caused by humans. Again, as with other surveys, Powell’s black and white
bandwaggoning summation avoids the “many diverse and robust perspectives
on climate science” as Pielke critiqued Oreskes in 2005.
The Powell 97% consensus claim relies on similar content of previous
surveys, which we have deconstructed above. The deconstruction of survey
content demonstrates that the 97% consensus claim is a math myth; a
statistical manipulation designed to provide social proof to the public to sway
their opinion.
A sweepingly broad ‘consensus’ is meaningless for scientific assessment or
public policy. Humans affect climate. So do beavers.xlvii

Mockery as a Tool to Delegitimize those who Challenge the
Consensus
Stephan Lewandowsky is a cognitive scientist with a passion for climate
change issues. He published a survey in 2010 claiming respondents who
challenged anthropogenic global warming were mentally unstable. This
psychological science study, while making brief allowance for ‘true
scepticism,’xlviii claimed to demonstrate that those who reject ‘climate science’

35

2/17/2014

are social outcasts whose world-view is based in conspiracy theories or hoaxes
such as that NASA faked the moon landing.
However, he was wrong – both in claims and in his statistical review.
The Lewandowsky survey, entitled “NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore
(Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of
Science” implies that any objections or rejection of AGW cannot be considered
to be credible and should be subject to ridicule. It is interesting to note that
this is the only such pejorative title among his many scientific publications.
As a psychological sciences professor, he would undoubtedly be aware of the
impact of this pejorative labeling.xlix
Steve McIntyrel pursued the matter of the qualitative research by
Lewandowsky and found Lewandowsky's conclusions do not follow from his
own data. Both his methods and math are lacking and contrived.li
Information obtained through FOI by Simon Turnilllii has shown that
responses by both Lewandowsky and Cook to questions from Chambers and
Woods were untrue. Chambersliii minced no words in one post.
Lewandowsky’s samples were questioned, as were his conclusions.liv Sadly,
his pejorative title and sweeping statements were very effective in painting
anyone who questioned AGW as a kook.
Lefsrud and Meyer 2013 - As noted in a less publicized survey of 1,077
engineers and geoscientists entitled “Science or Science Fiction? Professionals
Discursive Construction of Climate Change” the authors state that: “In
framing contests, delegitimizing the claims of opponents is often more
effective than arguing one’s own position.” (Lefsrud & Meyer 2012)lv In that
study, 99.4% of the respondents agreed that climate is changing, but only
36% believe human activity/GHGs are the main cause.

DISCUSSION
Summary of Results
Americans too often teach their children to despise those who hold unpopular
opinions. We teach them to regard as traitors, and hold in aversion and
contempt, such as do not shout with the crowd, and so here in our democracy
we are cheering a thing which of all things is most foreign to it and out of
place - the delivery of our political conscience into somebody else's keeping.
This is patriotism on the Russian plan. –
Mark Twain, in A. Ayres (Editor)

The Wit & Wisdom of Mark Twainlvi

36

2/17/2014

The idea that 97% of scientists hold a consensus view on human-caused
global warming/climate change has become part of the climate change
mythology, reaching the highest echelons of science such as NASA, and the
highest political office – that of President Barack Obama.
This 97% alleged consensus is also frequently assumed to mean there is
consensus that human industrial carbon dioxide or greenhouse gas emissions
are the main cause of climate change/global warming. If this were true, then
it would make sense to perform a cost-benefit analysis to determine if
stringent GHG reduction targets are economically beneficial. However, this
notion is false. Even if the IPCC long-term projections turn out to be correct,
it is not clear that GHG reduction targets are beneficial.
Therefore, the persistent effort to make the public believe 97% of all
scientists agree can only be understood as an intentional manipulation of
data and public opinion for commercial gain.
In fact, a substantial number of scientists dispute the impact of carbon
dioxide on the environment; many think CO2 and substantial research shows
that CO2 has a beneficial effect; many think it has a nominal impact.
The scientists whose area of study is not aligned with human impacts, are
not part of the IPCC assessment, even though their research demonstrates
that the atmosphere is far more dynamic and resilient to human impacts, and
that greater concern should be applied to cyclical warm and cold periods
caused by solar cycles (i.e. Medieval Warm Period, - which featured megaepoch droughts in some regions; Little Ice Age – a time of cold, wet seasons,
crop failure, revolution and famine.)
As this deconstruction of the data has shown, the 97% figure is arrived at
through significant manipulations and redactions of source data. So one
must ask why this particular figure is so important in creating social proof
(Cialdini 2006).
It is our contention that there are significant psychological and visual
reasons for the selection of the 97% figure.

The Kiss of Social Death
Williams (2007) expresses the outcome of being ostracized (i.e. the excluded
3%) - as “the kiss of social death.” Throughout the consensus papers, there
are persistent pejorative references to those who challenge or dissent with
the alleged consensus – the familiar terms of ‘contrarian,’ ‘denier,’ ‘conspiracy

37

2/17/2014

theorist,’ ‘manufacturers of doubt,’ etc. are dotted throughout these research
papers. Indeed the Lewandowsky (2010) paper, despite a single reference to
‘legitimate’ skepticism within the document, in some quarters he has
successfully and publicly tarred all potential climate change consensus
challengers with the brush of conspiracy theorists simply through his much
cited inflammatory titlelvii.
In reviewing all of Lewandowsky’s published titles, this one is the only
pejorative title: “NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science
is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science” - clearly
intended to humiliate those holding opposing views.
Humiliation is intended to exclude people from the group and make others
avoid them, resulting in social isolation and public mockery.
This effort at public humiliation has risen to the highest levels of politics
with President Obama’s declaration that ‘I don’t have time for a meeting of
the Flat-Earth Society’ – yet the evidence herein clearly shows that his entire
Georgetown speech’s premise that there is a 97% scientific consensus on
climate change is false.
Schacter (1959) experimented with social isolation, finding it had immediate,
devastating impacts on individuals; his work was followed up on by Sarnoff
and Zimbardo (1961) who largely replicated Schachter's results with a twist.
Their findings showed that when anxiety is aroused in a person, theoretically
that person would seek isolation from others. However, when fear is aroused
and if the person is unable to run away from the threat, that person then
welcomes a chance to join with other people.
In contemplating these findings, clearly the threat of global warming, as
presented by charismatic figures like Al Gore, makes ordinary people both
anxious and fearful. “Climate” is something no one can escape – but one is
able to join many groups that are engaged in the ‘fight against global
warming.’ Consequently, these dual primal emotions are powerful
motivators – both of which can supersede rational thought.
The language and visuals used by most of these groups in their materials and
on-line websites invoke fear and anxiety and encourage individuals to join
and take action.
The stubborn ‘consensus’ resisters are thus confronted by an army of angry
climate change activists, fearful of human extinction caused by those who
won’t join the herd.

38

2/17/2014

On a more subtle level, the 97% has tapped into the cultural sub-conscience
of the world. Upon the recent release of the Cook et al study, a website was
set up entitled “The Consensus Project.”lviii This highly visual site features
bold colors, powerful graphics, and most important, the 97% figure as a piegraph that neatly represents an image similar to Pac-Man, icon of the 1980’s
video-game movement and international social phenomenon. Pac-man is
credited with being one of the most popular video games of all time.
Figure 23: A visual comparison of the Cook et al (2013) Consensus graphic and Pac-Man

It may be coincidence or a designer’s subconscious recollection, or a clever
marketing gimmick, but it appears that now on “The Consensus Project” site
the 97% Pac-Man is set to gobble up the ‘ghosts of doubt’ about global
warming – to eat up those resistant 3% - and prevent ‘lives being lost’ (the
original end of a Pac-Man game, and the oft-cited threat of global warming –
extinction of the human race). [Figure 23 above]
An important part of “The Consensus Project” website is the page that
explains why ‘peer-review’ is important.
“What is peer-review, and why is it important? When a paper has been
peer-reviewed, that means it has been evaluated by a number of
qualified scientists and found to have followed legitimate scientific
methods. Most of the claims that are made by global warming skeptics
on TV, in print, and online are not based on legitimate science.”lix
Patrick Michaels, an expert climate scientist who was run out of his job for
challenging the ‘consensus’ describes how peer-review is supposed to work,
and how in climate science it does not meet conventional standards.lx

39

2/17/2014

“In order to limit any bias caused by personal or philosophical
animosity, the editor should remove your name from the paper and
send it to other experts who have no apparent conflict of interest in
reviewing your work. You and the reviewers should not know who
each other are. This is called a “double blind” peer review.
Well, this is “the way it is supposed to be.” But in the intellectually
inbred, filthy-rich world of climate science, where billions of dollars of
government research money support trillions of dollars of government
policy, peer review has become anything but
that.
There is simply no “double blindness.” For
reasons that remain mysterious, all the major
climate journals leave the authors’ names on
the manuscripts sent out for review.”
Likewise, as demonstrated by this deconstruction,
the peer-reviewers of the several consensus papers
failed to ensure that the papers followed legitimate
scientific methods.
A recent article in The Economist discusses the
challenges of peer-review and statistical evaluations,
noting that “…Other data-heavy disciplines face
similar challenges. Models which can be “tuned” in
many different ways give researchers more scope to
perceive a pattern where none exists. ..”lxi

Adventures in Peer Review
“John Bohannon, a biologist at
Harvard, recently submitted a
pseudonymous paper on the effects
of a chemical derived from lichen on
cancer cells to 304 journals
describing themselves as using peer
review. An unusual move; but it was
an unusual paper, concocted
wholesale and stuffed with clangers
in study design, analysis and
interpretation of results. Receiving
this dog’s dinner from a fictitious
researcher at a made up university,
157 of the journals accepted it for
publication"
http://www.utstat.utoronto.ca/reid/sta2201s/2
014/Unreliable.pdf

As noted by (Huff 1954) “Many a statistic is false on
its face. It gets by only because the magic of numbers
brings about a suspension of common sense.”
Indeed we find that each of these ‘consensus’ studies has built its case on the
preceding study, yet each of those has been shown in this deconstruction to be
statistically or procedurally inadequate (or both), lacking in statistical
significance, rife with situational bias, or offering semi-attached figures that
leads to drawing irrelevant conclusions.
The most irrelevant conclusion is that consensus proves anything
scientifically about human-caused global warming/climate change, or the
impact of human carbon dioxide/greenhouse gas emissions.

40

2/17/2014

IMPLICATIONS
“...Most frightening at all, our complacent acceptance of this approach shows
that mathematics has become a substitute of science....When used
improperly, mathematics becomes a reason to accept absurdity.”
James O’Malley quoted in: “Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can’t
Predict the Future” by O.H. Pilkey & L. Pilkey-Jarvis.

The implications are that trillions of dollars are being spent, millions of jobs
and thousands of industries affected, by policy decisions that are based on
faulty ‘consensus’ studies.
As noted by Cialdini (2006), the author of “Influence:”
“We need only make a conscious decision to be alert to counterfeit
social evidence. We can relax until the exploiters' evident fakery is
spotted, at which time we can pounce.”
“And we should pounce with a vengeance. I am speaking of more than
simply ignoring the misinformation, although this defensive tactic is
certainly called for. I am speaking of aggressive counterattack.
Whenever possible we ought to sting those responsible for the rigging
of social evidence. “
We also must not allow ourselves to be stampeded into wrongful decisionmaking by ‘pluralistic ignorance’ which, as Cialdini puts it:
“In addition to the times when social evidence is deliberately faked,
there is another time when the principle of social proof will regularly
steer us wrong. In such an instance, an innocent, natural error will
produce snowballing social proof that pushes us to an incorrect
decision….”
This is one of those instances when the principle of social proof – the alleged
97% consensus on human-caused climate change – will steer us wrong.
Rational, scientific debate must continue, particularly in Western
democracies where the scientific method of inquiry, curiosity and innovation
has led us to the pinnacle of technological development.
Most of all, our children must be taught that consensus is no replacement for
critical thinking.
However, this notion that a 97% consensus on climate change is relevant to
any discussion about carbon taxes or greenhouse gas reduction targets is
irrelevant and should be vigorously challenged – as shown in this
41

2/17/2014

deconstruction there are only miniscule numbers of scientists who explicitly
support these extreme declarations and demands for extreme measures.
Surveys by Author
Name

Oreskes/Peiser
Doran and Zimmerman
Anderegg et al
Cook et al

Actual % Explicitly
Agreeing w. IPCC
Declaration
1.2%
2.38%
66%
0.54%

From a Base Survey
Number of
Respondents or Papers
Assessed
~1,000
3,146 respondents
1,372 scientists
11,944

These surveys do not represent a 97% consensus as claimed.

Points to Consider






Do humans affect climate in some way? Yes.
Do most scientists agree on this very broad statement? Yes, most of
them.
Does rising human-made carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas cause
Catastrophic Global Warming? Very few scientists agree with this.
Human greenhouse gas emissions affect climate; ratio unknown.
Will carbon taxes and extreme climate change/GHG reduction targets
“save us from global warming” or ‘dangerous’ climate change? Very
unlikely.
Should we take action to reduce toxic pollutants like NOx & SOx
(oxides of nitrogen and sulfur), mercury and particulate matter? Of
course, but that is a separate discussion from carbon dioxide as an
agent of ‘global warming’ or a reason to impose carbon taxes.

Friends of Science have reviewed climate science literature for over a decade.
We agree with the Dutch government’s position on the inadequacy of climate
change analysis conducted by the IPCC : “We believe that limiting the scope
of the IPCC to human-induced climate change is undesirable, especially
because natural climate change is a crucial part of the total understanding of
the climate system, including human-induced climate change.”
Friends of Science hold the position, based on the scientific evidence, that the
sun is the main driver of climate change. Not you. Not CO2.
As this report shows, there’s no 97% consensus on global warming in these
surveys. Not even close. They’re fooling you.
§§

42

2/17/2014
Notes
i

http://www.pembina.org/pub/2284 Retrieved Jan. 20, 2014

ii

http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/documents/Tol_impacts_JEP_2009.pdf Retrieved Feb.
01, 2014
iii

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/11/climategate-2-0-bias-in-scientific-research/ Retrieved Feb. 01, 2014

iv

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2012/10/Ridley-ConfirmationBias1.pdf Retrieved Feb. 01, 2013

v

President Obama falsely assumed that the Flat-Earth Society is skeptical of the IPCC position. Society
president Daniel Shenton said, "there seems to be a definite correlation between the recent increase in
world-wide temperatures and man’s entry into the industrial age,” he said. “If it’s a coincidence, it’s quite a
remarkable one. We may have experienced a temperature increase even without our use of fossil fuels
since the Industrial Revolution, but I doubt it would be as dramatic as what we’re seeing now.”
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/25/flat_earth_society_believes_in_climate_change/ Retrieved Oct. 21, 2013
vi

http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ar5/ar5_wg1_headlines.pdf Retrieved Jan. 19, 2014

vii

Factors that Affect Confidence Intervals
There are three factors that determine the size of the confidence interval for a given confidence level. These
are: sample size, percentage and population size. The larger your sample, the more sure you can be that
the answer truly reflect the population. The accuracy also depends on the percentage of your sample that
picks a particular answer. Population size is only likely to be a factor when you work with a relatively small
and known group of people. The confidence interval calculations assume you have a genuine random
sample of the relevant population.
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/samples/confidenceinterval.htm Retrieved Dec. 28, 2013
viii

http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/16/senate-epw-hearing-on-the-presidents-climate-action-plan/ Retrieved
Jan. 22, 2014
ix

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus Retrieved Jan 12, 2014

x

http://www.iisd.org/cckn/www/index.html Retrieved Jan. 12, 2014

xi

4.5 Consensus is not unanimity - Decisions in a negotiation process can traditionally be taken by
unanimity, voting or consensus. Unanimity calls for explicit agreement of all Parties. Consensus falls short of
that. It is a process that aims at securing agreement from all, or at least most countries. If there is no explicit
objection, a decision can be adopted by consensus. Majority voting consists of simple majority, qualified
majority (the adoption of formulae such as 3/4th, 7/8th, etc.), weighted majority (4) and double majority (5)
rules.
xii

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unanimous?show=0&t=1389535535 Retrieved Jan 12, 2014

xiii

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/majority Retrieved Jan. 12, 2014

xiv

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=22 Retrieved Jan. 12, 2014

xv

http://news.agu.org/press-release/american-geophysical-union-releases-revised-position-statement-onclimate-change/ Retrieved Jan. 12, 2014
xvi

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=6 Retrieved Jan. 12, 2014

xvii

Cialdini, Robert (2006) Influence Harper Business

xviii

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

43

2/17/2014

http://climate.nasa.gov/blog
xix

“..people who believe that scientists disagree on global warming tend to feel less certain that global
warming is occurring, and show less support for climate policy. This suggests the potential importance of
correcting the widely held public misperception about lack of scientific agreement on global warming.”
xx

“Communicating the scientific consensus also increases people's acceptance that climate change (CC) is
happening (Lewandowsky et al 2012).”
xxi

the May 17, 2005 edition of Science Magazine wherein he noted: “...we should not be surprised if a
broader review were to find conclusions at odds with the IPCC consensus, as “consensus” does not mean
uniformity of perspective. ...” He further stated “The actions that we take on climate change should be
robust to (i) the diversity of scientific perspectives, and thus also to (ii) the diversity of perspectives of the
nature of the consensus.”
Ironically, in Oreskes’ response to Pielke, published in the same edition, she states “A full debate on the
moral, social, political, ethical, and economic ramifications of possible response to climate change – as well
as the ramifications of inaction – would be a very good thing. But such a debate is impeded by climate
change deniers.”
xxii

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/resources/globalwarming/oreskes-chapter-4.pdf

xxiii

https://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/Presentations/Oreskes%20Presentation%20for%20Web.pdf

xxiv

saying: “if Cook et al’s paper classifies my paper, ‘A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the
Economics of Climate Change’ as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing
could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper.” He goes on to suggest: One possible
explanation for this apparent pattern of misclassification into "more favorable" classifications in terms of
supporting the AGW hypothesis is that Cook et al. may have reverse engineered their paper. That is,
perhaps the authors started by deciding the "answer" they wanted (97 percent) based on previous alarmist
studies on the subject.
xxv

“Please estimate the percentage of your fellow geoscientists who think human activity is a contributing
factor to global climate change.”
xxvi

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations
Environmental Programme, IPCC’s purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for
informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its
most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth’s
climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of
the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].
xxvii

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/resources/globalwarming/oreskes-chapter-4.pdf
pg. 71 Retrieved Jan. 20, 2014
xxviii

Holocene See Fig. 2

xxix

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/consensus_opiate.pdf

xxx

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/

xxxi

“Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data
to show that (i)97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of

44

2/17/2014

ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and
scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced
researchers.” http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html Retrieved Dec. 20,
2013
xxxii

http://www.knmi.nl/research/ipcc/FUTURE/Submission_by_The_Netherlands_on_the_future_of_the_IPCC_l
aatste.pdf Retrieved Feb 01, 2014
xxxiii

http://www.pnas.org/site/authors/editorialpolicies.xhtml Retrieved Feb. 02, 2013

xxxiv

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is
largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term
climate processes.” – in fact no nuances were included nor were any short or long-term frameworks
defined in the Zimmerman MA survey and lack of specific time frame was a chief criticism of the key
question.
xxxv

Zimmerman email response: “It is challenging to keep our own biases in check when conducting a
survey like this. When I said "we have such a clear idea of what we are asking" I meant that we have been
over and over many versions of the same questions, looking for the most neutral wording, so it becomes
difficult to look at each question though fresh eyes and see where the issues might be. This entire process
has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly
say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I'm actually more
neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin
to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with
emotions, etc...”
xxxvi
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/09/Montford-Consensus.pdf Retrieved Dec. 20, 2013
xxxvii

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9 Retrieved Jan 21, 2014

xxxviii

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-majormath-errors/ Retrieved Jan. 21, 2014
xxxix

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9 Retrieved Jan. 21, 2014

xl

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-majormath-errors/ Retrieved Jan. 26, 2014
xli

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus Retrieved Jan. 26, 2014

xlii

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sar/wg_I/ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf Retrieved Jan. 27, 2014

xliii

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-majormath-errors/ Retrieved Jan. 26, 2014
xliv

A team of 12 individuals completed 97.4% (23 061) of the ratings; an additional 12 contributed the
remaining 2.6% (607). Initially, 27% of category ratings and 33% of endorsement ratings disagreed. Raters
were then allowed to compare and justify or update their rating through the web system, while maintaining
anonymity. Following this, 11% of category ratings and 16% of endorsement ratings disagreed; these were
then resolved by a third party http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article [There were 9 coauthors listed; it is not clear their roles in the ’12 individuals’.] Retrieved Jan. 21, 2014
xlv

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus (Retrieved Sept 12, 2013) “Ninety-seven percent of climate
scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human
activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements
endorsing this position.”

45

2/17/2014

xlvi

http://www.jamespowell.org/ Retrieved Jan. 21, 2014

xlvii

http://phys.org/news/2013-07-geoscientist-beavers-role-climate.html Retrieved Jan 21, 2014

xlviii

Rejection of science must be distinguished from true scepticism, which may prompt the
revision of a scientific claim on the basis of evidence and reasoned theorizing. Skepticism
is not only at the core of scientific reasoning but has also been shown to improve people's
discrimination between true and false information (e.g., Lewandowsky, Stritzke, Oberauer,
& Morales, 2005, 2009).
xlix

http://www.bris.ac.uk/expsych/people/stephan-lewandowsky/index.html Retrieved Jan. 20, 2014

l

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/13/centre-of-the-storm/ Retrieved Jan. 21, 2014

li

http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/28/lewandowsky-doubles-down/ Retrieved Jan. 20, 2014

lii

http://australianclimatemadness.com/2013/11/02/lewandowsky-forgets-who-funds-his-university-theaussie-taxpayer/ Retrieved Jan. 21, 2014
liii

http://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/lewandowsky-the-liar/ Retrieved Jan. 21, 2014

liv

liv

As noted on McIntyre’s site, Lewandowsky said: "While consistency is a hallmark of science, conspiracy
theorists often subscribe to contradictory beliefs at the same time – for example, that MI6 killed Princess
Diana, and that she also faked her own death." This is based on data from a Wood et al article. McIntytre
obtained the data by FOI requests.
McIntyre wrote " Within the Wood dataset, only two (!) respondents purported to believe that Diana faked
her own death. Neither of these two respondents also purported to believe that MI6 killed Princess Diana.
The subpopulation of people that believed that Diana staged her own death and that MI6 killed her was
precisely zero. [The blog posts gives detail of how they reach their conclusions from zero data.]
lv

http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full Retrieved Jan. 22, 2014

lvi

Ayres, Alex (Ed) (1987) The Wit & Wisdom of Mark Twain. New York: Harper & Row

lvii

“NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax An Anatomy of the Motivated
Rejection of Science” Lewandowsky, S. Oberauer, K., Gignac, G. July 7, 2012; more recent version 05-102013
lviii

http://theconsensusproject.com/ Retrieved Jan. 27, 2013

lix

http://theconsensusproject.com/ Retrieved Jan. 20, 2014

lx

http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2011/06/16/peer-review-and-pal-review-in-climate-science/

lx

http://www.utstat.utoronto.ca/reid/sta2201s/2014/Unreliable.pdf Retrieved Jan. 27, 2014

46

2/17/2014

Friends of Science have spent a decade reviewing a broad spectrum of literature on climate
change and have concluded the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide
(CO2). The core group of the Friends of Science is made up of retired earth and atmospheric
scientists.
Contact:
Friends of Science Society
P.O.Box 23167, Connaught P.O.
Calgary, Alberta
Canada T2S 3B1
Toll-free Telephone: 1-888-789-9597
Web: www.friendsofscience.org
E-mail: contact@friendsofscience.org

47


Documenti correlati


Documento PDF 97 consensus myth
Documento PDF pneumatico estivo 245 40 r18
Documento PDF la loggetta n 97 ott dic 2013 notizia di piansano e della tuscia francesca ceci
Documento PDF circolare n 23 del 26 maggio 2016
Documento PDF circolare n 23 e del 26 maggio 2016
Documento PDF robert graves la dea bianca


Parole chiave correlate