99.9% of Climate Scientists Agree with Whoever is Paying Them
More than 99.9 percent of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a [alarmist-funded] survey of 88,125 [alarmist-funded] climate-related studies.
The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97 percent of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.
“We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99 percent now and that it’s pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change,” said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science at Cornell University and the paper’s first author.
“It’s critical to acknowledge the principal role of greenhouse gas emissions so that we can rapidly mobilize new solutions, since we are already witnessing in real time the devastating impacts of climate related disasters on businesses, people and the economy,” said Benjamin Houlton, Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell and a co-author of the study, “Greater than 99 percent Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change in the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature,” which published Oct. 19 in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
In spite of such results, public opinion polls as well as opinions of politicians and public representatives point to false beliefs and claims that a significant debate still exists among scientists over the true cause of climate change. In 2016, the Pew Research Center found that only 27 percent of U.S. adults believe that “almost all” scientists agreed that climate change is due to human activity, according to the paper. A 2021 Gallup poll pointed to a deepening partisan divide in American politics on whether Earth’s rising observed temperatures since the Industrial Revolution were primarily caused by humans.
“To understand where a consensus exists, you have to be able to quantify it,” Lynas said. “That means surveying the literature in a coherent and non-arbitrary way in order to avoid trading cherry-picked papers, which is often how these arguments are carried out in the public sphere.”
In the study, the researchers began by examining a random sample of 3,000 studies from the dataset of 88,125 English-language climate papers published between 2012 and 2020. They found only four out of the 3,000 papers were skeptical of human-caused climate change. “We knew that [climate skeptical papers] were vanishingly small in terms of their occurrence, but we thought there still must be more in the 88,000,” Lynas said.
Co-author Simon Perry, a United Kingdom-based software engineer and volunteer at the Alliance for Science, created an algorithm that searched out keywords from papers the team knew were skeptical, such as “solar,” “cosmic rays” and “natural cycles.” The algorithm was applied to all 88,000-plus papers, and the program ordered them so the skeptical ones came higher in the order. They found many of these dissenting papers near the top, as expected, with diminishing returns further down the list.
Overall, the search yielded 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly skeptical, all published in minor journals.
If the 97 percent result from the 2013 study still left some doubt on scientific consensus on the human influence on climate, the current findings go even further to allay any uncertainty, Lynas said. “This pretty much should be the last word,” he said.
See more here: phys.org
Header image: Yale Environment 360
Editor’s note: Science is not done by consensus, it isn’t a vote. The most widely-publicised ’97 percent consensus’ study was that by the Australian former cartoonist John Cook. Climate researcher David Legates demolished it by doing his own research, and came up with this revealing illustration:
So, the much-vaunted 97 percent consensus turns into 0.3 percent consensus.
Then we have the vast divide over publishing and peer-review. The claim that almost all published papers support AGW is correct, primarily because most skeptical papers are refused at peer-review, as the entire peer-review process has been completely subverted to support AGW. This gives the totally misleading impression that everyone agrees, when they most certainly do not.
Alarmists also continuously bleat ‘the science is settled’ and ‘the debate is over’. Science is never settled, and scientific decate should never be over. That is not science, that is censorship.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.Â
Trackback from your site.
Alan
| #
There could be a debate with the climate science fraudsters, if we didn’t have such stupid politicians who seem to be incapable of any rational thought. They are unable to interpret the empirical evidence, even if they don’t understand that the science put forward is wrong. The polticians listen to all the accademics and the media who are fully behind the fake scientists.
Ultimately, the taxpayers are the ones providing the money to pay the fake scientists. The politicians have been doing all they can for decades to ensure the masses remain ignorant.
Reply
Greg Spinolae
| #
Definitions are important!
1. A “Scientist” is a person who hypothesises generalisations from empirical evidence. A person who opines political dogma is NOT a “scientist”; paid or otherwise.
2. “Peer Reviewed” means a small number of people who CLAIM to be acquained with the author’s discipline publicly say they agree with the author’s hypothesis. “Peer Reviewed” DOES NOT MEAN the hypothesis has been tested against reproducible data. If “reproducibility” were the benchmark for papers purporting to be “scientific” then only a tiny fraction of “peer reviewed” papers would be recognised as being of any value.
Reply
Andy
| #
Very good points there Greg.
Reply
Allan Shelton
| #
All this means is that to win the debate, the fake politicians must be voted out of office,
There is no way that AGW believers will listen to logic; reason; or accept empirical evidence that debunks AGW.
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
Dr James Fetzer and I will be discussing Radiation Physics and Thermodynamics today, and will once again disprove the “back Raaadiation warming” hypothesis. The Slayers have repeatedly explained known heat transfer laws, for which climate is the final trailing artifact.
I challenge any Warmist or Lukewarmist to debate this hoax
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Cornell University should be embarrassed.
Perhaps, Dean Benjamin Houlton of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and visiting clown, Mark Lynas, should walk across campus to the Mechanical Engineering Department. There, they might learn basic Laws of Thermodynamics, and then realize ‘Greenhouse Gas Theory’ violates basic thermodynamics.
Cold gases in the atmosphere, whether CO2 nor Kryptonite, cannot warm anything…
Reply