A Critical Examination Of ‘Consensus’ in Climate Science
The concept of a scientific consensus on ‘climate change’ has been a focal point in public and academic discourse, often cited to underscore the urgency and legitimacy of addressing global warming
This consensus refers to the agreement among scientists that climate change is real, predominantly caused by human activities, and poses significant risks to the planet.
While the consensus is frequently highlighted to support policy measures and societal action, its emergence, use, and implications warrant a critical examination.
This article explores the origins of the consensus concept, its application in promoting bad science, and the methodological critiques that challenge its validity.
Ultimately, science should be driven by continuous inquiry and debate rather than by consensus, which can stifle scientific progress.
The idea of a consensus on ‘climate change’ began to take shape in the late 20th century as the evidence for global warming accumulated. Key reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and prominent studies highlighted the human impact on climate, leading to a perceived agreement among climate scientists.
This consensus was increasingly used to galvanize public opinion and political action. The notion gained substantial traction with the publication of influential papers and statements by scientific bodies, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the NASA.
The consensus on ‘climate change’ has played a dual role. On one hand, it has been instrumental in driving policy initiatives aimed at mitigating ‘climate change’. By presenting an apparent unified front, scientists have effectively exaggerated the seriousness of climate issues to policymakers and the public, fostering initiatives like the Paris Agreement.
On the other hand, the reliance on consensus has sometimes led to the endorsement of flawed science. Historical examples, such as the consensus on the geocentric model of the universe or the now-discredited belief in eugenics, illustrate how consensus can perpetuate incorrect or harmful ideas.
In the context of climate science, the emphasis on consensus may have suppressed dissenting views and critical examination of methodologies.
Several seminal papers have bolstered the perception of a scientific consensus on ‘climate change’. In her widely cited essay published in Science, Naomi Oreskes reviewed 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers and concluded that 75 percent supported the consensus view, while none explicitly refuted it.
This study has been pivotal in reinforcing the consensus narrative. Similarly, a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Anderegg et al. analyzed the publication and citation records of climate researchers, finding that 97-98 pertcent of the most active researchers supported the consensus view on ‘anthropogenic climate change’.
Another review by Cook et al. of over 11,000 scientific papers found that 97.1 percent of those expressing a position on anthropogenic global warming endorsed the consensus view. This paper has been extensively cited in both academic literature and public discourse.
However, the consensus narrative has raised several methodological concerns. Studies like Oreskes and Cook et al. suffer from selection bias, as they only include papers that explicitly state a position on ‘climate change’, potentially excluding neutral or dissenting papers.
Notice how the consensus arguments fall apart when including all papers.
The methodologies used to assess consensus, such as counting abstracts or analyzing citation records, have been critiqued for oversimplifying complex scientific opinions and reducing nuanced positions to binary categories.
In fact, a re-review of Cook et al. 2013 found…
A claim has been that 97 percent of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024).
This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement.
Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid.
Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.
Additionally, there are concerns that the drive to establish a consensus has led to confirmation bias, where studies and papers supporting the consensus are preferentially published, cited, and funded while dissenting views are marginalized.
Evidence suggests that many scientists, particularly young career, feel pressured to align with the consensus to secure funding, publish in prestigious journals, or avoid professional ostracism.
I definitely felt this pressure as a young academic working towards tenure. This entire system inhibits open scientific inquiry and debate.
While a useful tool for mobilizing action, the claimed consensus in climate science also presents significant challenges. The reliance on consensus can perpetuate flawed methodologies, suppress dissent, and hinder the fundamental scientific process of debate and critical inquiry.
Historical precedents demonstrate that scientific progress often arises from questioning and overturning established views, not from adhering to consensus.
Science thrives on skepticism and debate, and it is through this process that our understanding of complex issues like ‘climate change’ will continue to evolve and improve.
See more here substack.com
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.
Trackback from your site.
Tom
| #
The consensus of .00000000001% of the population that has decided that humanity needs to be culled must be a majority. That is how it works…one master controlling a million slaves. Apparently, all slaves consent to the same tyranny.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
“This entire system inhibits open scientific inquiry and debate.”
All systems have the same effect.
Also, is there ever much inquiry and debate in science? Meteorology? Where?
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
System??? Please define.
The publisher of Galileo’s book wrote a preface to its readers in which he wrote “Intuitive Knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.” (as translation to English by Crew and de Salvio, 1914).
If you define ‘says\em” for me, I might might have a different issue to discuss (not debate) with you.
Have a good day
Reply
Climate Heretic
| #
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
Michael Crichton
Reply
James
| #
The consensus is that the last major ice coverage began to disappear about 12k years ago and that most of that ice has ended up in the oceans, raising sea level by about 100m. No ice left, no latent heat to be absorbed by the melt, so it all appears as temperature. We all know heat content has increased; but in a system that includes water, which can also appear as steam or ice, there will be an equilibrium temperature that cannot change save locally. We’ve not yet seen the large changes of temperature that must arise when there will be no more ice anywhere.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Actually, last Ice Age receded 18,000 years ago, but let us not split hairs…
Reply
Herb Rosr
| #
Hi James,
Since the surface of the Earth is 70% water in order to raise sea level by 100 m (without creating more water) the 30% land must be covered by a layer of ice 1,430 m thick. This excludes how much the land would rise as the weight of the ice was removed and the lower density of ice. I think the interpretation of the data is flawed.
Herb
Reply
James
| #
Accoring to the Wikipedia site the Laurentide Ice Sheet was up to 3km thick and covered all Canada and a large part of what’s now US. Ther muast have been similar coverage in the Alps, Northern Europe and Russia; and no doubt Antartica was far large too. When the Laurentide ice dams broke it’s said that there were flood rates measured in cubic km per second; the results of which are still to be seen in the US. The floods in Europe opened the English Channel. Point is, none of this is mentioned by those who want us to think that warming is due to large scale industry and gas emissions. Aesop’s fables are more likely to be true that that guff.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
I agree there is absolutely no science supporting the GHGT but I question the use of sea level as accurate data. The occurrence of marine fossils on mountains was once seen as supporting evident of the great flood but it is actually confirming evidence of tectonic activity. I think sea level evidence is also a result of tectonic activity as dry land is a result of plates floating on the molten interior with oceans being puddles on top of the plates. Changes in sea level are a result of the land changing, not the amount of water in the oceans.
We have witnessed the glaciers of Greenland growing and retreating without significant changes in sea level and Antarctica, even though covered by ice, is a desert with very little precipitation to increase the thickness of the ice. The cause of glaciation remains a mystery and probably lies outside our solar system.
Herb
Reply
James
| #
Some say ice formation and fusion is caused by summing the periodic effects of earth’s orbital eccentricity (every 100kY) with precession of the axis (40kY) and the position of Earth along the eliptical orbit during winter or summer in the northern hemisphere (20kY); all plus some positive feedback due to albedo (ice coverage) or even gas and water vapour changes in the atmosphere. Certainly if temperatures increase or decrease, we’d expect more water vapour so a larger or smaller greenhouse effect (if possible) too.
Reply