• Login
  • Register
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result

Is it Really True, as Climate Change Activists Claim, That 97% of Scientists Agree With Them?

by David Craig
27 October 2021 6:16 PM
Climate change activists rally at Oxford Circus in central London on April 18, 2019, the fourth day of an environmental protest by the Extinction Rebellion group. - Climate change activists on Thursday brought parts of the British capital to a standstill in a fourth consecutive day of demonstrations that have so far led to more than 400 arrests. (Photo by Tolga AKMEN / AFP)TOLGA AKMEN/AFP/Getty Images

Climate change activists rally at Oxford Circus in central London on April 18, 2019, the fourth day of an environmental protest by the Extinction Rebellion group. - Climate change activists on Thursday brought parts of the British capital to a standstill in a fourth consecutive day of demonstrations that have so far led to more than 400 arrests. (Photo by Tolga AKMEN / AFP)TOLGA AKMEN/AFP/Getty Images

We’re publishing a guest post today by David Craig, author of There Is No Climate Crisis. This is the first of a number of guest posts we’ll be running about global warming and net zero in the run up to and during COP26.

Our Government is imposing draconian limitations on our lifestyles, our economy and our finances in order to achieve net zero carbon emissions to supposedly save the planet from catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW), now renamed as climate change. Probably one of the most repeated arguments you’ll hear, over and over again, in support of the need to achieve net zero is that “97% of scientists agree CAGW is happening”.

Former President Barack Obama is just one of many who have made this claim: “97% percent of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”

So did President Joe Biden’s Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry, when he warned of the “crippling consequences” of climate change and that: “97% percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.”

This claim is widely accepted. Yet, in spite of the damaging effects reaching net zero will have on Western economies, not a single politician or journalist seems to have made the effort to find out where this ‘97%’ figure came from and how accurate it actually is.

Statistical smoke and mirrors?

The main author of the paper which came up with the famous 97% figure was an Australian former web programmer and blogger who later gained a PhD in Philosophy at the School of Psychology, University of Western Australia and then founded what could be seen as a climate alarmist website.

He assembled a group of volunteers as part of a ‘citizen science’ project and tasked them with”‘examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991-2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming'”. Note that the volunteers didn’t read the actual scientific papers, they just looked at the abstracts – a summary paragraph or two describing what was in the papers. The volunteers then classed the abstracts into one of seven categories according to their opinions of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW):

1.           Explicit endorsement of AGW with quantification

2.           Explicit endorsement of AGW without quantification

3.           Implicit endorsement of AGW

4.           No position or Uncertain

5.           Implicit rejection of AGW

6.           Explicit rejection of AGW without quantification

7.           Explicit rejection of AGW with quantification

The reviewers then ‘simplified’ results into four main categories as follows:

Endorse AGW                    3,896                  32.6% of abstracts

No AGW position             7,930                  66.4% of abstracts

Reject AGW                       78                        0.7% of abstracts

Uncertain on AGW          40                        0.3% of abstracts

So, this gave only 32.6% who, the reviewers concluded, endorsed AGW. This was clearly not quite the stunning super-majority of 97% which the study claimed to have identified. Now comes the clever bit. Instead of admitting that just 32.6% of papers (actually just abstracts of papers) endorsed AGW, the group decided to remove all the 7,930 abstracts which didn’t take a position on AGW.  Then, hey presto, magic happened. That left just 4,014 abstracts of which 3,896 (97%) supposedly ‘endorsed’ AGW.

This was a bit like doing a survey of the voting intentions of 1,000 people. You find that 90 say they’ll vote Democrat (U.S.) or Labour (U.K.) and 10 say they’ll vote Republican (U.S.) or Conservative (U.K.) and the remaining 900 say they’re “undecided”. You then choose to eliminate the 900 “undecided” and you claim that 90% of voters support Democrats (U.S.) or Labour (U.K.) and just 10% of voters will vote Republican (U.S.) or Conservative (U.K.). This is, of course, complete statistical buffoonery as the real percentage of the sampled 1,000 voters who have said they will vote Democrat/Labour is actually just 9% and not 90%.

But that’s not the end of the magic employed to reach that wondrous 97%. The reviewers decided to lump together three categories of abstracts – Explicit endorsement with quantification; Explicit endorsement without quantification and Implicit Endorsement. But in the paper claiming 97% support for AGW, the reviewers don’t tell us how many papers fitted into each of these three categories. An independent researcher managed to get hold of the original data file and claimed to have found that in 3,896 abstracts which supposedly ‘endorsed’ AGW, just 64 were in the Explicit endorsement with quantification category; 922 were in the Explicit endorsement without quantification; and the vast majority – 2,910 (out of 3,896) – were in the Implicit endorsement of AGW category. Deciding from an abstract of a scientific article that the article ‘implicitly’ supports AGW is a bit like walking down a high street and deciding you know how people will vote based purely on looking at the kind of clothes they wear. To propose this as a serious survey is beyond ludicrous.

Thus, if this independent researcher’s figures are accurate, when you dig down into how the ‘97% of scientists’ figure was actually conjured up, you find that only 986 of 11,944 – that’s just 8.2% – of abstracts actually explicitly said they agreed with the theory of man-made global warming. And that’s clearly not the kind of figure the apocalypse-threatening climate catastrophists would really want to publicise too widely.

So, this ‘97% of scientists’ claim is based on about 11 to 12 volunteers, whose scientific credentials have not (as far as I know) been released and all of whom were probably firm AGW believers, each having to look at around 1,000, often quite obtuse, scientific abstracts. During this review, they decided whether they thought the scientific papers (which they hadn’t read as they had only looked at the abstracts) explicitly or implicitly supported the AGW theory. To claim such an approach is statistically valid is beyond farcical. Given the damage reaching net zero will do to our economies and our lives, it is beyond incredible that not a single politician, mainstream-media journalist or editor seems to have had either the ability or the inclination to expose the more than dubious origins of the almost ubiquitous ‘97% of scientists endorse AGW’ claim.

Tags: Climate changeCOP26

Donate

We depend on your donations to keep this site going. Please give what you can.

Donate Today

Comment on this Article

You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.

Sign Up
Previous Post

Unvaccinated Set to Be Banned from Berlin Christmas Market

Next Post

Covid Test Swabs Found Contaminated With Aluminium, Silicon and Dangerous Chemicals

Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please log in to comment

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

5 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Redspan
Redspan
3 years ago

As Toby Young pointed out when he quoted,

“but the reality is that most people are just not actually interested in finding out the truth for themselves. They are much more interested in conforming with what they perceive to be the “moral truth” — the prevailing moral norm.’”

They’ve won the propaganda war on climate change. Unlike Covid restrictions there’s no end in sight. It’s reinforced every day in multiple ways and trying to counter it seems futile.

What you can do is point out that if you truly believe that CO2 emissions are the root of all evil then rejoice in the fact that the UK’s annual emissions have been dropping every year for over 20 years.

The UK’s annual CO2 emissions in 2019 was 369.88 million tonnes and it’s been decreasing for over 20 years. Europe’s & the USA’s combined total was 12.6 billion tonnes while China’s annual CO2 emissions in 2019 was 10.17 billion tonnes and it’s increasing.

3
0
TruthHurts2077
TruthHurts2077
3 years ago

Where did this article sneak in from? It wasn’t there at 6:16pm on Wednesday.

1
0
Mark
Mark
3 years ago

Not a coincidence that The Science always supports the elite dogma, because studies and opinions refuting it are systematically discouraged, suppressed and denied.

Coronapanic, climate alarmism, antiracism, sex and gender, normalisation of homosexuality. All the topics recognised as having a “politically correct” position as far back as the 1990s, with covid panic added last year.

3
0
Matt Dalby
Matt Dalby
3 years ago

I’m totally convinced that net zero (not AGW) is a serious threat to our liberty and way of life, much worse than lockdown as it will go on for much longer. Therefore it’s only right that dailysceptic highlights this. However there are a large number of climate sceptic websites/blogs already in existence. Therefore I feel it may be better if dailysceptic stuck to mainly covid related issues, but included permalinks to other websites that are sceptical of the official narrative, whether it’s on climate change, woke ideology etc. rather than just repeating was is available elsewhere on the web.

0
0
nisanyan
nisanyan
3 years ago

Rather disturbing that no name or link was provided for the article bashed here. How are we supposed to know if such an article even exists or that it actually says what the author here claims it does?

2
-1

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

DONATE

PODCAST

The Sceptic | Episode 45: Jack Hadfield on the Anti-Asylum Protests, Alan Miller on the Tyranny of Digital ID and James Graham on the Net Zero Pension Threat

by Richard Eldred
25 July 2025
0

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

News Round-Up

28 July 2025
by Richard Eldred

Tory Peer’s Daughter in Tears Over Pro-Palestine Zealots at University Open Day

27 July 2025
by Richard Eldred

We Must Arm Ourselves, Say Trans Activists

27 July 2025
by Richard Eldred

Hate Crime Okay, If Not by a White Man?

27 July 2025
by Laura Perrins

Elite Police Squad to Monitor Anti-Migrant Posts on Social Media

27 July 2025
by Richard Eldred

The Mounting Impact of Net Zero in One Rural Area

25

We Must Arm Ourselves, Say Trans Activists

20

Taliban Fighters ‘Brought to UK on Airlifts’ After Afghan Data Breach

19

Tory Peer’s Daughter in Tears Over Pro-Palestine Zealots at University Open Day

18

School Chaplain the Church of England Is Trying to Cancel Again… Six Years After He Said Pupils Needn’t Accept LGBT Ideology

16

Lowest Six-Month Human Death Toll From Bad Weather Since Records Began

28 July 2025
by Chris Morrison

The Mounting Impact of Net Zero in One Rural Area

28 July 2025
by Guy de la Bédoyère

Hate Crime Okay, If Not by a White Man?

27 July 2025
by Laura Perrins

Gas is Dirt Cheap. Only Politicians Make Energy Expensive

27 July 2025
by Ben Pile

Ozzy Osbourne, Oasis of Heavy Metal

26 July 2025
by James Alexander

POSTS BY DATE

October 2021
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Sep   Nov »

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

POSTS BY DATE

October 2021
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Sep   Nov »

DONATE

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

News Round-Up

28 July 2025
by Richard Eldred

Tory Peer’s Daughter in Tears Over Pro-Palestine Zealots at University Open Day

27 July 2025
by Richard Eldred

We Must Arm Ourselves, Say Trans Activists

27 July 2025
by Richard Eldred

Hate Crime Okay, If Not by a White Man?

27 July 2025
by Laura Perrins

Elite Police Squad to Monitor Anti-Migrant Posts on Social Media

27 July 2025
by Richard Eldred

The Mounting Impact of Net Zero in One Rural Area

25

We Must Arm Ourselves, Say Trans Activists

20

Taliban Fighters ‘Brought to UK on Airlifts’ After Afghan Data Breach

19

Tory Peer’s Daughter in Tears Over Pro-Palestine Zealots at University Open Day

18

School Chaplain the Church of England Is Trying to Cancel Again… Six Years After He Said Pupils Needn’t Accept LGBT Ideology

16

Lowest Six-Month Human Death Toll From Bad Weather Since Records Began

28 July 2025
by Chris Morrison

The Mounting Impact of Net Zero in One Rural Area

28 July 2025
by Guy de la Bédoyère

Hate Crime Okay, If Not by a White Man?

27 July 2025
by Laura Perrins

Gas is Dirt Cheap. Only Politicians Make Energy Expensive

27 July 2025
by Ben Pile

Ozzy Osbourne, Oasis of Heavy Metal

26 July 2025
by James Alexander

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union
  • Home
  • About us
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy

Facebook

  • X

Instagram

RSS

Subscribe to our newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In

© Skeptics Ltd.

wpDiscuz
You are going to send email to

Move Comment
Perfecty
Do you wish to receive notifications of new articles?
Notifications preferences