CONSENSUS - Do 97% of Scientists Really Agree?

The most popular of all statistics declares that "97% of climate scientists believe anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a significant problem." A colleague and climate change activist at Cornell recently claimed in a debate at Cornell, "that 97% number is not even debatable." He's right; it's complete garbage. Over 11,000 abstracts from papers supposedly on climate change were culled down to 79 papers, of which 77 said climate change was a problem.9 The one chard of truth: 77 of 79 is about 97%.

Dave Collum: 2019 Year in Review.

Get in a debate / argument with any "believer" and it is only a matter of time before they will tell you that the majority of scientists believe in man made global warming (ie. greenhouse effect) and that that many scientists can't be wrong. It is a compelling argument. I mean, how can a little nobody like myself (and a self proclaimed "denier") dare to question the wisdom of 97% of scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying the effects of carbon dioxide on our atmospheres and who all predict the oncoming armageddon? 

It matters not that I have two Science university degrees and I probably am qualified to research and discuss the articles published and the opinions so widely expressed. My degrees specialized in Food Science and really, what does that have to do with the dedicated training given when experts graduate from programs specifically designed to investigate the climate and its effects on our environments? Little credibility there.

No matter. I'll push my viewpoint forward anyway and perhaps have some effect on the overwhelming mass hypnosis people are experiencing today as so many sources tell them that they must believe, or.. (or what, anyway?). 

MY PREMISE - it's not 97% of SCIENTISTS who agree that man made (Anthropogenic) global warming is happening and is causing climate change, but rather that it is 97% of PEOPLE who have been convinced that we are destroying the Earth through our continual burning of fossil fuels which cause global warming through a carbon dioxide based mechanism called the "greenhouse effect". 

A little windy perhaps but you get the idea don't you? Let's face it "Mr. / Ms Normal Person" - you didn't really go out and count the number of Scientists who back anthropogenic global warming; you accepted that number because someone of authority told you that was the case (and you were told you were stupid if you believed otherwise). That person / organization etc. if challenged would point to references in the literature that state that this is case, 97% of scientists do support the carbon dioxide based theory and continue to press their point that all should believe and "deniers" should be quashed. 

So, obviously, we need to take a good look at their claims and see if we're getting the straight goods or not. 

Again, for the record  I'm a "denier",  so I'm obviously going to look for information that challenges this pro warming manifesto, but I'll promise that I'll try to be fair along the way and give benefit of doubt where it's justified. Trust me.  I'm a Food Scientist. 

Rather than get into a long winded talk on how the theory of C02 based "greenhouse effect" came into being and how we were convinced that this was the villain that we had to defeat, I've copied a reference source that does an excellent job of describing the chronology. Push the button and then come on back when you're ready.

An excellent article by S.M. Enzier, MSc.,  another Food Scientist (no, I'm just kidding!). There were also some good looking links at the end of the article if you wish to delve deeper into the chemistry of the phenome. 

The article was NOT however a rejection or acceptance of the greenhouse effect, but rather an overview of the concept and a bit of information on how it has been received by the scientific community and by the public. The 97% claim pushed forward by the "believers" still stands and has not yet been challenged. 

I'm not going to get into refuting the chemistry in this article; my aim is to show that acceptance of this chemistry is NOT universal and that there are some pretty credible scientists who refuse to sign off on it. Here come a number of sites that list the opposition and you can decide if they warrant an opinion or not. I'm just providing the lists that "believers" discount as "deniers" and who they want to silence. 

Here's the "believers" argument database, which claims that a number of predjudicial organizations support anti global warming research and should be denied credibility because of this association.

And here is a couple of interviews of credible scientists who go against the grain when it comes to explaining global warming. One is explained Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, the retired head of the paleogeophysics and geodynamics at Stockholm University an ex member of the IPCC who resigned in disgust when he couldn't make his voice heard amongst the worldwide "authority" who lean strongly to supporting the C02 based warming scenarios. 

And another through an interview on the infamous FOX channel where Dr. Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute gives his viewpoint.

There's more for the asking if you just use your search engines and ask the questions that are in your mind. Do the work and be rewarded with enlightenment, or possibly confusion on how much controversy actually exists over a concept that apparently 97% of Scientists agree upon.


It's a big complicated paper. I'll print the first paragraph. It pretty much says it all.

"We juxtapose 386 prominent contrarians with 386 expert scientists by tracking their digital footprints across ∼200,000 research publications and ∼100,000 English-language digital and print media articles on climate change. Projecting these individuals across the same backdrop facilitates quantifying disparities in media visibility and scientific authority, and identifying organization patterns within their association networks. Here we show via direct comparison that contrarians are featured in 49% more media articles than scientists. Yet when comparing visibility in mainstream media sources only, we observe just a 1% excess visibility, which objectively demonstrates the crowding out of professional mainstream sources by the proliferation of new media sources, many of which contribute to the production and consumption of climate change disinformation at scale. These results demonstrate why climate scientists should increasingly exert their authority in scientific and public discourse, and why professional journalists and editors should adjust the disproportionate attention given to contrarians."

Read more: Intellectual snobbery and Elitism at its finest !  However, there is some good data to make decisions on trending of media information and opportunity for balance between differing viewpoints.

etc. etc. etc.

Please note: these images and the discussions surrounding them are easily found on Google. I'm not even going to attempt to make a bibliography because this isn't a scientific paper, it's an opinion piece. If you doubt me go search them out. The exercise is quite revealing.