Home rebuttal: alarmists’ claims Climate Is Normal Climate Facts Our Best Data Who's Lying? What is Real Science Peer Review proxies Papers Debunking Claims NASA Debunk Antarctic Loss Real Cause of Climate Renewables Corals Trillion Dollar Industry Big Money Scaring green money Russian Money Paid by fossil fuel Warming Stopped Media Lies People are Dying History (politics) Extreme Weather? CO2 didn't warm arctic CO2 & Rate of warming CO2 lags Temperature CO2 Innocent! 1/2 of Warming Wrong Its Warming,But Acidification IPCC_Flawed IPCC Prediction Fail IPCC_Disproved IPCC_PeerReview IPCC Scientists IPCC&CLouds WWF Infiltrated the IPCC Harming People misconduct Data Adjustments Cooling since 1945? Drought, hurricanes etc. Arctic Antarctic Selected Emails Selected Quotes Fraud Of Century? 97 percent of scientists 25% of AMS / 50% JonesInterview An OK Prediction Data Sources False Deadlines Record Temperature Climate Change Truths Its OK to Lie! Energy Facts GridStorage CostlyEnergy Mann's Book Wegman styn_vs_mann Peer Review Error Statistical Errors The Sun Solar OceanHeat Ocean Heat Polar Bears OK AlGore's Errors Ask Questions Climate Models Local Food Threats Why I'm a Skeptic GreenhouseMoon Alternative Energy 1350+ realist papers Conflict of Interest? Muzzeled Scientists How To Argue Common Ground Hurricane No Proof NW Snow Pack James Hansen Consensus The Hockey Stick 650 Dissenters Easy Solution DataQuality Heat Island Is Science Settled? Ocean Level Sea Level sea_&_islands Glaciers Ice Sheets Greenland Gore's Mentor OGWC Articles Summary FinancialPapers OtherMotivations PeakOil Ozone Hole Fracking Acid Rain No Limits Videos Printables Links Briffa et al (1998) data

Debunking the Climate Scam

Billions of Dollars -  Fudged Data  -  Corrupt Scientists

Greedy Green Corporations - Trillion Dollar Prize

No Warming For Two decades - Illiterate Media

Bought and Paid For Organizations


Email WebMaster

How to claim 97-98% of scientists say
Humans are causing global warming when the reality is 32% (or 8%)


97% of Scientists Do Not Agree with Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Where did this 97% figure originate? It appears to have started with a short 2009 paper by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of the University of Illinois at Chicago. In this paper, the announced the results of the two question poll. This poll was sent to 10,257 “Earth scientists.”   Read the rest of this summary at the source: https://towerofreason.blogspot.com/2018/03/97-of-scientists-do-not-agree-with.html


Analysis of  Cook’s (of SkepticalScience.com) 97% claim:


Of 12280 papers, Cook took out the “Don’t Knows”(66% of the samples), and in, essence counted all  of the remainder that did not reject the hypotheses that humans are causing global warming as endorsing the “consensus”.

Had he included the “Don’t Knows”, it would be: “32% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

Had he included ONLY explicit endorsement, it would be: “8% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”


In Cooks own words (emphasis added):

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

For details see:  http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/watch-the-pea\

(Including the lower level of explicit endorsements, Cook’s real number is 8% (999/12280).  If you want to stretch the truth to include implications, then you still only get 32% (3933/12280).)


More analysis:


http://richardtol.blogspot.com/2015/03/now-almost-two-years-old-john-cooks-97.html includes this (bold added):

The Cook paper is remarkable for its quality, though. Cook and colleagues studied some 12,000 papers, but did not check whether their sample is representative for the scientific literature. It isn’t. Their conclusions are about the papers they happened to look at, rather than about the literature. Attempts to replicate their sample failed: A number of papers that should have been analysed were not, for no apparent reason.

... The sample was padded with irrelevant papers. An article about TV coverage on global warming was taken as evidence for global warming. In fact, about three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say about the subject matter.

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/03/the-97-consensus-misrepresented-miscalculated-misleading/   described it thusly:

As Tol explains, the Cook et al paper used an unrepresentative sample, can’t be replicated, and leaves out many useful papers. The study was done by biased observers who disagreed with each other a third of the time, and disagree with the authors of those papers nearly two-thirds of the time. About 75% of the papers in the study were irrelevant in the first place, with nothing to say about the subject matter. ... Cook himself has admitted data quality is low. He refused to release all his data, and even threatened legal action to hide it. (The university claimed it would breach a confidentiality agreement. But in reality, there was no agreement to breach.)











Debunk of several consensus claims: http://junkscience.com/2016/07/what-is-a-climate-scientist/


The Earlier 97% claim:

They surveyed 10,257 Earth Scientists, 3146 responded.

Then they selected 77 responses from published climate scientists to get the 97.4% claim. Of course most published climate scientists make a living from  alarmism - there is little money to research non-alarmist climate.


The details are here:


Dennis Ambler: Climate "Consensus" Opiate, The 97% Solution

Watts Up With That:   About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus…

Watts Up With That:   What else did the ’97% of scientists’ say?

Lawrence Solomon: 75 climate scientists think humans contribute to global warming

Forbes:   That Scientific Global Warming Consensus…Not! – Forbes

SPPI:  http://sppiblog.org/news/the-97-consensus-is-only-75-self-selected-climatologists

Dave Burton   Do 97% of experts agree with the IPCC that human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming?    

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

Climate Quotes: http://climatequotes.com/2011/02/10/study-claiming-97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-flawed/

Wendy mcelroy: http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.3684

Benny Peiser’s analysis :  http://cfact.eu/2005/05/04/dr-benny-peisers-letter-to-science-magazine-and-the-story-of-its-rejection/  

Tom Wigley  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wigley writes to advocate/scientist Kevin Trenberth that Oreskes’ work is “useless,” http://junkscience.com/2013/03/13/climategate-3-0-tom-wigley-says-naomi-oreskes-work-is-useless/


Debunking several 97% claims



97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus”  http://climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus/


The original 97% claim is here:

article by Peter T. Doran

a survey by Margaret R. K. Zimmerman

The paper with the data:  http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf      


The 97 Percent Myth


 WSJ: The Myth of the Climate Change '97%



Example of Scientific Organizarions Endorsing the

Global Warming Scam Against Membership Belief



According to American Meteorological Society (AMS) data, 89% of AMS meteorologists believe global warming is happening, but only a minority (30%) is very worried about global warming.


In contrast to the AMS survey, where all respondents are AMS meteorologists, a majority have Ph.D.s and fully 80% have a Ph.D. or Masters Degree, position statements by organizational bureaucracies carry little scientific weight. For example, a position statement recently published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and frequently cited as the “definitive” indication of scientific consensus on global warming was authored by a mere 23 persons. Of those 23 persons, only five had Ph.D.s in a field closely related to climate science, an equal number (5) were staffers for environmental activist groups, two were politicians, one was the EPA general counsel under the Clinton administration and 19 of the 23 had already spoken out on behalf of global warming alarmism prior to being chosen for the panel. Clearly the scientific weight of the NAS statement pales in comparison to the AMS meteorologist survey.

From:  Forbes  3/14/2012;  http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/03/14/shock-poll-meteorologists-are-global-warming-skeptics/


Earlier AMS poll:

   Only 24 percent of the survey respondents agree with United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assertion, “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.”




Other Polls