Global Warming 97 Percent ‘Consensus’ Actually 76 People

Global Warming 97 Percent 'Consensus' Actually 76 People
That 97 percent ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming we have all been hearing so much about over the past couple years was actually the opinion of just 76 people. Global warming alarmists have been altering the scientific data for years; contorting it into statistical pretzels in order to convince people that the planet’s mean temperature is rising at an unnatural and accelerated rate and that human activity is the cause.

Skeptics have been vilified and ridiculed by the believers; compared to flat-earthers or even to holocaust deniers but global warming fanatics are themselves laughably ignorant, regarding the actual, unadulterated scientific data. Without even delving into the, largely, made-up science of “climatology” – a discipline (or lack thereof) that has been around for only thirty years, there are staggeringly obvious reasons why the entire global warming cult is a joke. The most obvious of these reasons is a look at the man who has been most vocal in promoting the myth over the past 12 years; former United States Vice President Al Gore. As with a religious cult, when the leader of the movement is exposed as a fraud, it should automatically cast doubt upon the entire belief-system. When that leader is additionally exposed as having no knowledge of that in which he pretends to believe, it becomes even more apparent that the entire philosophy is a sham.

Global warming hype Billboard outside Coors Field
This billboard outside Coors Field in Denver, Co. shows the true agenda behind the global warming movement

Quite apart from the fact that Gore has amassed a personal fortune of over $100 million on the back of his climate crusade, one only need to look at the debunking of his signature movie An Inconvenient Truth to perceive the grand deception; as a then-adviser to the British government on climate change, Gore managed to have his movie integrated into the public education curriculum in the United Kingdom. Undoubtedly, this contract, alone, netted the former VP a tidy sum. Facing an unexpected and determined backlash against the film, the British government commissioned research into the movie’s claims and was forced to remove it from UK schools after it was confirmed that there were, in fact, a very great number of inconvenient untruths presented in the film.

Whilst Gore loudly decries the evils of fossil fuels, he made an estimated pre-tax profit of $100 million when he sold his failed Current TV network to the oil-rich nation of Qatar; sponsors of the terrorist-supporting Al Jazeera network that took over Current’s slot in the US cable television market. In total, Gore is now worth an estimated $300 million – a true “1%-er” who owes a large part of his fortune to oil revenues.

As if this wasn’t enough to discredit the entire global warming conspiracy, Gore has done his level best to publicize his mind-numbing lack of scientific knowledge: During a 2009 appearance on Conan O’Brien’s talk show, Gore stated that the temperature of the Earth’s interior was “several million degrees”. It hardly bears stating, of course, that this claim was hilarious in it’s inaccuracy; our planet would be nothing more than a ball of gas, were this actually the case.

Gore himself is the poster-boy for why the proponents of the man-made global warming theory have no credibility, yet these people continue to issue statements and dire predictions that have absolutely no basis in objective scientific research. The oft-promoted 97 percent ‘consensus’ – when one delves into the originating study – is a completely hollow claim. The 97 percent is actually based on the opinions expressed by 76 out of 79 people. The facts of the original survey, from which the famous 97 percent ‘consensus’ was derived, are as follows:

The online survey was conducted in 2008 and contained “up to nine questions”. The 97 percent figure was based upon the answers to two of those questions.

10,257 individuals were invited to participate in the survey. These individuals represented a “broad range of Earth scientists”. Of the 3146 people who actually completed the survey, just 79 of them – by the standards of the survey – were published experts in the field of climate science.

The first of the two questions focused on was “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Hardly a very scientific question; the mere inclusion of the word “generally” immediately strips this particular question of any scientific credential. In answer to this question, 90 percent of respondents answered “risen”. If one were to go into the street and ask ordinary Americans, who express a belief in global warming, how much the Earth’s temperature has risen over the past 100 years, most of the answers will range wildly from six or seven degrees to thirty degrees or more. The actual increase is in dispute, depending on which source one chooses to believe, and ranges – generally – from 0.5 to 1.2 degrees.

The second question honed in on to produce the 97 percent ‘consensus’, was “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” Again; hardly a scientific question. “Do you think…” and “significant contributing factor” are both completely unquantifiable terms. Of the few survey participants who could actually claim to be “climate scientists”, 76 of 79 answered “risen” to the first question and 75 out of 77 answered “yes” to the second.

It turns out, therefore, that the famous 97 percent ‘consensus’ on global warming is based upon nothing more than the opinions of 76 – or 75 – people and the answers that they gave to two unscientific and unspecific questions in an online survey. Meanwhile, there are numerous studies and surveys that show a large number of scientists do not believe that human activity contributes significantly to climate change. One could, arguably, deconstruct any of these studies in a similar fashion, but to do so would be highly disingenuous; it would merely prove that global warming believers are willing to claim that “the science is settled”, based upon the opinions of 76 people, whilst dismissing the opinions of a far greater number who disagree.

 

Editorial by Graham J Noble

Sources:
University of Illinois at Chicago (PDF), Center For Individual Freedom, White House Initiative on Global Climate Change, Yahoo News, American Thinker, Organizational Studies

34 Responses to "Global Warming 97 Percent ‘Consensus’ Actually 76 People"

  1. High Treason   August 22, 2015 at 10:29 pm

    To add insult to injury, the cherrypicked sample were those that identified themselves as active climate researchers. These people owe their very livelihood to churning out the cAGW/ climate change/whatever witchhunt of the day propaganda. The “significant” did not even say what percentage. Many have fallen for the headline-too lazy to think beyond the headlines. Some do not even want to listen to how the famous 97% sound bite came about. I have seen people quite literally put their hands over their ears-they simply did not want to know the truth. Unbelievable.

    Reply
  2. Collin Edwards   November 19, 2013 at 9:30 am

    Good read. I’m frustrated by the comments that only care you’re a skeptic and not the point that the polls and numbers have been skewed for personal and political gain. Fine if people want to legitimately study the climate and work to better the world through science, but don’t try to justify an agenda by cherry picking data. Let’s continue to study until we have real results that we can use to get an accurate picture of what’s happening in the world. That’s where us “skeptics” really sit on global warming/climate change.

    Reply
    • Graham Noble   November 19, 2013 at 11:34 am

      Your comment cuts to the heart of how the global warming proponents attempt to use language to shape the debate: Skeptics are people who are not ready to accept a theory, whereas the proponents of the theory use the word “deniers” in an attempt to portray skeptics as people who refuse to accept any possibility of the theory being accurate.

      Sadly, it means there can be little constructive debate or exchange of ideas, as those who believe in global warming deliberately attempt to delegitimize the opinions of those who are skeptical.

      Reply
  3. Ben Welgoed   November 18, 2013 at 9:01 am

    OK, GN, since you asked for real data on the average global sea level:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_(US_EPA).png
    Most people should be able to understand the graph depicted there.

    Reply
    • Graham Noble   November 18, 2013 at 9:43 am

      Here is the problem: You can show me all the charts and graphs you want but It doesn’t mean anything when we have several documented instances of the data being either misrepresented or just made up.

      Reply
      • Ben Welgoed   November 18, 2013 at 12:46 pm

        First you want data, then when they are presented you say (paraphrasing) ‘never mind, some unspecified graphs out there are shady’. Really great job you’re doing there. Makes people really trust you alright, not.

        Btw, if you had bothered to spend half a minute, you would have seen that the reference given is as real as they get.

        Lastly GN, aiming for the lamest response of the day isn’t exactly going to get you off the hook, unless what you’re aiming for is a very low bar in ‘Journalism’, because you did truly reach that.

        Reply
        • Graham Noble   November 18, 2013 at 12:49 pm

          I’m actually not asking for data from global warming fanatics, since your “data” is always tilted towards your agenda.

          I have challenged others to prove that anything I have said here is untrue. So far, no takers.

          Reply
        • Graham Noble   November 18, 2013 at 12:51 pm

          As for me aiming for a low bar in Journalism; if I truly wanted to do that, I would apply for a position at MSNBC.

          Reply
          • Ben Welgoed   November 18, 2013 at 3:11 pm

            Sad GN. It’s really sad I wasted my time on an immature blogger like you. To you no facts exist other than your own, which you ought to know aren’t facts to objective observers. But judging from your blinding arrogance you wouldn’t really know what an objective observer could possibly be.

          • Graham Noble   November 18, 2013 at 3:18 pm

            Resorting to ad hominem attacks when you have nothing else is standard for you people.

    • Rod   June 29, 2014 at 4:05 pm

      Funny, your url ends up at a wiki page that says “No pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file. (Pages on other projects are not counted.)”. good job there. And you STILL haven’t touched on the meat of the article. the 97% figure bandied about. This site http://www.bau.uni-siegen.de/fwu/wb/forschung/publikationen/wahl_et_al_2013_esr.pdf stresses the North Sea rising 1.5 millimeters a year since 1900.By the way, that is MEAN sea level so it goes up and down. No big deal as that’s ab out 6.5 inches in 100 years.

      Reply
  4. Daniel Muro   November 18, 2013 at 8:34 am

    Graham, you did concede in an earlier comment that most “climate experts” will not deny that humans have some effect on climate change. Ok, then you state that
    “The question is; does the impact of human activity warrant the destruction of the global economy?”

    In a scientific question, an outside unrelated variable (or politics, opinion, bias, etc.; in this case economic repercussions) should be included to scientifically and objectively determine whether climate change is primarily human driven or not because instantly you have a reason to bias the statistics readings, and measurements in favor of your bias. The science should be objective irregardless of the consequences of the results. After we have an accurate outcome then we can begin discussing the impact of among other things the world economy, etc. and how to go about mitigating or working with it (or not, if science proves man made climate change to a large degree is wrong).

    Reply
    • Ben Welgoed   November 18, 2013 at 12:50 pm

      Daniel, preface to GN’s reply: ‘I’m never wrong’.

      Reply
  5. Jonny Kingham (@Joonyk1)   November 18, 2013 at 1:49 am

    And what about the various other peer-reviewed studies which have found the same figure (97%). Your article seems to be referring only to Doran & Zimmerman (2009) but what about Anderegg et al (2010) which found the exact same number, Bray & Von Storch (2008) which found similar and Cook et al (2013) which found that 97% of peer-reviewed papers which included a cause of GW, believed that CO2 emissions were the significant cause.

    Furthermore the Doran and Zimmerman paper also found that over 80% of ALL respondents agreed that CO2 is the dominant forcing in the current warming trend. This includes many retired scientists who have never published peer-reviewed lit on climate change. That’s still a very high number.

    But what these studies have shown is that the majority of experts on climate change agree with the consensus view held by the IPCC.

    Reply
  6. Alistair Reid   November 18, 2013 at 1:03 am

    97% is actually a huge underestimate – a recent meta analysis of papers on climate science found that of more than 10 thousand peer reviewed scientific papers published only 24 were against human caused global warming.

    http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

    If you were a climate scientist trying to get funding for research you’d do far better in challenging climate change orthodoxy. As long as a blogger driven controversy exists we’ll keep studying the problem – actually addresssing it will require engineers, chemists, physiscists, economists,…

    Reply
  7. Bill Butler   November 17, 2013 at 6:49 pm

    As per usual, Global Warming Deniers fabricate stories that are just pure fiction.

    Sea level continues to rise due to thermal expansion and glacial melting. The current rate of rise is over 50% faster than what was observed from 1870 to 2004. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

    Glaciers continue to melt, and the rate of melting has accelerated since 1998.
    World Glacier Monitoring Service
    http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/sum11.html

    Ocean heating has accelerated sharply since 1998. Graph at: http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/GwdOceanHeat.jpg
    Full peer reviewed paper at:
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full
    Up to date info at:
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ (click on “2”)

    Reply
    • Graham Noble   November 17, 2013 at 7:25 pm

      Apologies for the delay in your comment being posted. It was pending approval. Occasionally, comments get held up automatically if our spam filter picks up on something in them. In your case, it was probably the number of links you included.

      I approved the comment because, unlike you global warming fanatics, I actually believe in freedom of speech and fair debate.

      Your links mean nothing; I could post as many links to articles which say the opposite of everything these ‘studies’ say.

      As for my editorial being fiction, please provide OBJECTIVE proof that anything I have stated is untrue. I have provided video, plus six sources. It is worth noting that my sources include a link to an analysis of the “97%” study by the University of Illinois – a pro-global-warming institution – plus a link to the White House (pro-global-warming) and Yahoo (pro-global-warming).

      In truth, you cannot and will not provide any proof that I have stated anything which is untrue…yet I still approved your comment – in contrast to global warming proponents who constantly attempt to silence those with whom they do not agree.

      Reply
      • Bill Butler   November 17, 2013 at 8:12 pm

        Your statement
        “Global warming alarmists have been altering the scientific data for years; contorting it into statistical pretzels in order to convince people that the planet’s mean temperature is rising at an unnatural and accelerated rate and that human activity is the cause.”
        is a complete fabrication. It is not true.

        Reply
        • Graham Noble   November 17, 2013 at 8:22 pm

          You can prove that the statement is untrue? Do you know about predictions of global warming effects made in the 70s? If they had been correct, most of us would be dead now and the rest of us would be eating each other.

          Are you aware that Al “several million degrees” Gore predicted that the polar ice cap would be completely gone before the present time?

          Have you heard of the University of East Anglia internal emails, in which climate researchers very clearly stated that their research data did not prove global warming and they would have to alter the numbers to make it appear otherwise?

          All of these things happened; they are recorded fact…just as it is a recorded fact temperatures have not increased in the past 15 years.

          Reply
          • Bill Butler   November 17, 2013 at 8:36 pm

            The statement
            “it is a recorded fact temperatures have not increased in the past 15 years”
            is another Global Warming Denier fabrication.

            The year 2005 broke all previous temperature records. The 2005 record was broken again in 2010.

            Total global warming has accelerated since the year 2000. Please see my web page for documentation.

            The “Global Warming Stopped in 1998” Lie
            Global Warming Deniers claim that Global Warming is a hoax/fraud/scam.
            They lie, they are willfully ignorant, and they are wrong.
            http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/GwdGlobalWarmingStoppedIn1998.html

          • Bill Butler   November 17, 2013 at 8:44 pm

            Also your statement
            “University of East Anglia internal emails, in which climate researchers very clearly stated that their research data did not prove global warming and they would have to alter the numbers to make it appear otherwise?”
            is another fabrication.

            There were no emails that “clearly stated that their research data did not prove global warming”.

            If you want to claim otherwise, please provide links to the original emails.

          • Ben Welgoed   November 18, 2013 at 12:57 pm

            GN, you make a statement, so you prove it true. That’s part of a journalist’s job. Well, it’s not really journalism what you do. So, yes, go ahead, say what you want, expand on it some more, but do admit you’re just writing fiction.

          • Graham Noble   November 18, 2013 at 1:01 pm

            The fact that you are going down the list of comments and replying to every one of them indicates to me that you may be one of these paid Media Matters trolls. You’re wasting your time here: I’ll let you present evidence that I’m writing fiction, if you can. Before you attempt that, I suggest you research each of the six sources I provided.

            If you continue merely to post comments that have no value and no substance, however, I’m simply going to start deleting them.

            Present some facts or don’t waste my time.

          • Ben Welgoed   November 18, 2013 at 3:22 pm

            Another prime example of the pot telling the kettle he’s black. You refuse to read the links I send you (which contain facts not fiction), because they might show evidence that go against your opinions.
            Now I’m perfectly alright with people having opinions, but then admit that is what your statements are. They are not facts, that’s for sure.

          • Graham Noble   November 18, 2013 at 3:34 pm

            Iv’e looked at a lot of global warming data. I don’t trust most of it because people who promote the theory have been caught red-handed fabricating the data.

            At worst, you can accuse me of simply disregarding anything that goes against what I believe. Fine – it would just mean I’m doing the same as the global warming proponents do.

            We could exchange links to data that supports our positions, but there’s no point: You simply refuse to believe anything with which you do not agree and I don’t trust so-called scientific research that is produced by people who are on record as engaging in deceit.

  8. Scottish Sceptic   November 17, 2013 at 3:19 pm

    I’m a sceptic and I agree with both statements, so do most people I know who are sceptics.

    The big questions is not CO2 warming but all the fictional feedback effects that are necessary to get enough rise that if you use bogus economics and ignore all the benefits of warming you might just get a case to do something about the small amount of CO2.

    On the survey, the consensus should have been 100% so what I can never understand is why with 3% of those respondents incapable of ticking the right box?

    Reply
    • Graham Noble   November 17, 2013 at 3:26 pm

      I think it’s fair to say that there are almost no climate experts who would completely deny that human activity has any affect on climate change. The question is; does the impact of human activity warrant the destruction of the global economy? There is simply no objective evidence that it does; ‘objective’ being the operative word, here.

      Reply
      • Ben Welgoed   November 18, 2013 at 9:23 am

        Fact: Giving unbiased information will allow people to make warranted decisions. You GN, however, are giving truly biased information. From your language it is clear that your intentions are merely to justify the status quo, which is that humanity continue to plunder, slash and burn the Earth, with all its flora and fauna, as long as it benefits “the economy”.

        Well, believe it or not GN, it goes to reason that the GW impact on the global economy will not be some minor matter. For one, a flooded Manhattan will impede the New York Stock market, but more than that, a flooded East Coast implies destruction of much wealth Americans have invested in.

        Now even these examples are just minor impacts on the economy. Destruction of major swaths of farmland will have a much greater impact on people in general. GN, you and your denial camp holding on to your firm religion that humans can do no wrong is not doing any service to any of us people, nor the rest of the planet. Your nearly psycho hangups about Gore are laughable and no more than a red herring. Everybody knows he is not a scientist, and more than that, he is like most people in the US nearly innumerate, quoting wrong numbers left and right. Who cares? Gore of all people is not the science that tells us what we’re doing wrong.

        Reply
        • Graham Noble   November 18, 2013 at 12:57 pm

          First of all: Are you able to prove that anything I have stated in this article is untrue? I have provided my sources – half of which are sources that support the global warming theory, so accusing me of providing biased data is laughable.

          As for Manhattan; we were being told in the early 70s that failure to address global warming would mean Manhattan – along with many coastal urban centers – would be flooded by the year 2000.

          ….how did that work out?

          Reply
  9. John F. Borowski   November 17, 2013 at 2:18 pm

    This is utter nonsense……the data is in: global warming is real. Glaciers melting, why is the ocean becoming acidic? Why are migrations of animals changing? Why was 2000-2009 the hottest decade on record………..blame Gore, blah, blah, blah. Look, ” I just saw big foot with a global warming denier and they both fell off the flat earth.” Articles like these are propaganda. Try reporting on some real science: even if you don’ t like it.

    Reply
    • Graham Noble   November 17, 2013 at 3:05 pm

      This article is reporting on real science. It is you who is dismissing real science simply because you don’t agree with it. It’s what makes you believers comical: You insist that you are relying on ‘real science’ but completely disregard any scientific data which debunks your claims.

      Reply
      • Ben Welgoed   November 18, 2013 at 3:05 pm

        GN, you can’t fool me with that utter youknowhat you’re saying. Can’t read actual data? Here is some more for then, but from my previous experience with your denialist tendencies you probably won’t check this link either. Anyway, here is your chance to learn something:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

        Reply
        • Graham Noble   November 18, 2013 at 3:13 pm

          This is your last chance: I have repeatedly challenged you to prove that anything I have said is wrong and you have repeatedly failed to do so. Your tone is becoming condescending and your idiotic links to wikipedia – which has zero credibility a a source, since anyone can publish anything they like – are getting tiresome.

          I’m quite sure you are getting $10 checks from Media Matters for every one of these comments.

          Either prove me wrong or I’m just going to start deleting your comments.

          Reply
    • Paul Clark   November 17, 2013 at 6:24 pm

      Actually the data shows that the sea level rise is the same or down on what it’s been for 6,000 years, thus showing Antarctica and Greenland are not melting. Hottest decade on record is not necessarily a rising trend but it could be a stationary trend, which is what it is — for the last 15 years no rise in temps.

      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/new-paper-finds-sea-level-rise-has.html

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.