“… where did that
famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3,000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
Then of those, only a small subset,
just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!
77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%.
Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.
From
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia
Here is a description of the poll to which you refer:
o A poll performed by
Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at
University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79
climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature.
Economic geologists and
meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:
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.
[129]
129) Doran, Peter T.; Zimmerman, Maggie Kendall (January 20, 2009).
"Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change".
Eos.
90 (3): 22–23.
Bibcode:
2009EOSTr..90...22D.
doi:
10.1029/2009EO030002.
ISSN 2324-9250.
And here are a few other sources for the high consensus values from the same Wikipedia article
o A 2013 paper in
Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found
4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "
97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".
[134]
134) Cook, John; Nuccitelli, Dana; Green, Sarah A.; Richardson, Mark; Winkler, Bärbel; Painting, Rob; Way, Robert; Skuce, Andrew (1 January 2013).
"Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature".
Environmental Research Letters.
8 (2): 024024.
Bibcode:
2013ERL.....8b4024C.
doi:
10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.
ISSN 1748-9326.
and
o James L. Powell, a former member of the
National Science Board and current executive director of the
National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the
13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.
[142] 13,926/13,950 =
99.828%
142) Plait, P. (11 December 2012).
"Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air".
Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
and
o A follow-up analysis looking at
2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.
[143] 9,135/9,136 =
99.989%
143) Plait, P. (14 January 2014).
"The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial".
Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
and
o His 2015 paper on the topic, covering
24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over
99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.
[144]
144) Powell, James Lawrence (1 October 2015).
"Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True".
Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society.
35 (5–6): 121–124.
doi:
10.1177/0270467616634958.
ISSN 0270-4676.
and
o In his latest paper, Powell reported that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to
54,195 articles with an average consensus of
99.94%.
[145]
145) Powell, James Lawrence (2017-05-24). "The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters".
Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society.
36 (3): 157–163.
I have posted this information repeatedly here. If you had kept abreast
at all you would have been aware of how well supported is the scientific consensus on AGW
But, you didn't
“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.
The Oregon Petition is statistical crap. No attempts were made by the petition organizers to verify the names, educations or occupational specialties claimed by signatories. From third party attempts we get:
o In 2001,
Scientific American took a random sample "of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science."
Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition — one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.
[30]
30) "Skepticism About Skeptics (sidebar of Climate of Uncertainty)".
Scientific American. Archived from
the originalon 2006-08-23.,
October 2001
and
o Former
New Scientist correspondent
Peter Hadfield said that scientists are not experts on every topic, as depicted by the character
Brains in
Thunderbirds. Rather, they must
specialize:
In between Aaagard and Zylkowski, the first and last names on the petition, are an assortment of metallurgists, botanists, agronomists, organic chemists and so on. ... The vast majority of scientists who signed the petition have never studied climatology and don't do any research into it. It doesn't matter if you're a Ph.D. A Ph.D in metallurgy just makes you better at metallurgy. It does not transform you into some kind of expert in
paleoclimatology. ... So the petition's suggestion that everyone with a degree in metallurgy or geophysics knows a lot about climate change, or is familiar with all the research that's been done, is patent crap.
[31][32]
31) Peter Hadfield.
How my YouTube channel is converting climate change sceptics The Guardian. 29 March 2010.
32) Peter Hadfield.
Meet the Scientists. 25 May 2010.
You were right about one thing. The consensus is not 97%. For
every practical purpose, it is unanimous
