Climate Change — How 97% Scientific Consensus Became 7.78% Science
This article is not about whether climate change is human-made or a normal natural process. It is about the statement that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is primarily caused by humans
The discussion about climate change is very emotional and can provoke unpleasant reactions, so I would like to ask you to stick to the facts and not personal opinions. Since science relies on its neutral and fact-based view of reality, it is surprising and not at all scientific that there is so much emotion in this debate.
To avoid a shitstorm, I would like to make a few things clear upfront.
My ecological footprint is very small
I do not use airplanes
It is impossible to do without plastic today, but I avoid it as much as possible (no plastic bottles, no plastic bags, no plastic clothes and so on)
I only use my car when it is absolutely necessary (I live in the countryside in Spain, and without a car, it is impossible to manage everyday life). I drive once or twice a week to get things and to visit a friend. All together, some 2000 km a year
I don’t travel
I buy 95% of all things second-hand, including clothes
I only eat meat out once or twice a month, and only from the countryside nearby
No industrial food goes on my plate
No air conditioner
I never, ever disrespect nature
The list could go on, but I think it is enough to give an idea that my awareness of human impact on nature is strong. In my philosophy, nature is a living organism, and I believe my personal needs are less important than the ecological balance, so I act accordingly.
I do not take sides in the climate change debate
I am neither on the side of the proponents nor on the side of the deniers. My philosophy is that we can only find solutions to the challenges of our time by working together and not wasting time on endless discussions about who is right or wrong.
With that in mind, I ask that you only make comments that are solution-oriented, and not emotionally motivated. Thank you.
Marie Curie - Image - Public domain
Only facts
This article is not about whether climate change is human-made or a normal natural process. It is about the statement that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is primarily caused by humans.
This statement is based on the study entitled “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature” by John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce. Published in Environmental Research Letters , 15 May 2013. (See below for the original summary of the study and the reference.)
This study is probably the most important reference when it comes to human-made climate change and the political measures against it.
I am not a scientist in the academic sense; my horizon is common sense and my own experience. I am guided by that.
My mind is conditioned to doubt everything first, which is an appropriate trait in this day and age. For this reason, I questioned the 97% assumption from the outset. My alarm bells start ringing at the term scientific consensus.
Because science is exactly the opposite of consensus, it questions reality, which is its lifeblood.
We have only made such incredible progress because we have questioned the consensus. If we hadn’t done that, we would still believe that the earth is flat, because that was the scientific consensus at the time.
In other words, when we reach 97% consensus, science becomes a belief system.
When I investigate something, I usually check the actual statement first and then the critics. In this case, it was not necessary to check the critics because the study itself proves that there is no 97% consensus. Yes, you heard me correctly. Read for yourself (1), but I’ll explain it step by step using the summary of the study itself.
Albert Einstein by Orren Jack Turner —
The Study: Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.
The research paper states (original text from the summary of the study);
*the evolution of scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature by examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 with the topics “global climate change” or “global warming “*.
An “abstract” in this context is a concise summary of a study, research paper, or publication (author’s note).
Why 11,944?
Why only from 1991 and not from earlier years as well?
I asked an AI research tool, Deepai.org, the following question: how many studies, research papers and publications on global warming or climate change were there until 2011?
Please keep in mind that the numbers are estimates and an AI tool has a certain margin of error, but Deepai.org is a valuable resource for anyone who wants to research or implement AI technology without having deep technical expertise. The numbers may vary, but to get a rough idea, it’s sufficient.
This is the answer:
According to the Google Scholar database, which indexes scientific literature, the following estimates exist for the number of publications on global warming and climate change up to 2011:
- Peer-reviewed articles: about 100,000 to 200,000 (source: Google Scholar search results)
- Conference papers: about 50,000 to 100,000 (source: Google Scholar search results)
- Books: over 10,000 to 20,000 (source: Google Books and WorldCat)
- Theses and dissertations: approx. 50,000 to 100,000 (source: Google Scholar search results)
Again, the question: Why 11,944?
If we are talking about a scientific consensus, we should include all available data and not just a portion of it. If we take the lower figure of 50,000, then 11,944 is only 23.89% of the available data.
Question: How can 23.89% become a 97% consensus?
The research paper states (original text from the study abstract);
*We found that 66.4% of abstracts took no position on AGW, 32.6% were in favor of AGW, 0.7% were against AGW, and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming*.
66.4% took no position on AGW. No position means they are neutral. More than half made no statement at all on the issue of global warming or climate change.
Only 32.6% supported the assumption that climate change is caused by humans. Question: How do we get from 32.6% to a scientific consensus of 97%?
The research paper states (original text from the study abstract);
*Of the respondents who commented on climate change (33.6%), 97.1% supported the consensus that humans are causing global warming.
They asked the 32.6% in favor, 0.7% against, and 0.3% undecided whether global warming is caused by humans and get an answer that 97.4% answer in the affirmative.
To illustrate, you have a vote in parliament, and 66.4% of MPs abstain; 32.6% vote in favor, 0.7% against, and 0.3% are undecided. Result: 97% of parliamentarians have voted yes.
Summary: Official policies and their actions are based on the scientific “consensus” that 97% of science confirms that climate change is human-caused.
In fact, of the 50,000 scientific papers (see above, the lower number of publications) on climate change/global warming, only 11,944 have been analyzed, representing 23.89% of the available data.
Of this 23.89%, 32.6% confirm that global warming is caused by humans.
The bottom line is 7.78%.So the generally accepted scientific consensus that 97% of climate change is human-caused is actually only 7.78%.
This is simple math. Science must include all relevant data in the equation to come to a serious conclusion.
As I said, I am impartial, and it is obvious to me that humans have a major impact on the climate and the earth itself. However, what I want to show with this article is that we need to work together on the basis of established facts and not on not based of false assumptions against each other.
Footnotes
(1): IOP Science. Environmental Research Letters. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024. We analyze the evolution of scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature by examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 with the topics “global climate change” or “global warming”. We found that 66.4% of abstracts took no position on AGW, 32.6% favored AGW, 0.7% opposed AGW, and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Of the respondents who expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% supported the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we asked authors to rate their own contributions. Compared to the abstract ratings, a lower percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Of the self-assessed papers that did express a position on climate change, 97.2% agreed with the consensus. For both abstract ratings and author self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among contributors expressing a position on climate change increased slightly over time. Our analysis shows that the number of papers rejecting the AGW consensus represents a negligible proportion of published research.
Cover image Max Planck by Hugo Erfurth - Public domain