The “97% consensus” myth

One other “97% consensus” myth (courtesy of John Droz, PhD, see

Science Under Assault
{SlideShare seems to periodically have quality issues in translating some presentations. To get the best results please download the PDF file by clicking on th…
): “10,257 scientists were sent a survey in 2008” (‘Do you agree we are in the midst of man-made global warming?’) — [of course, ‘~10,000 scientists’ does not represent even 1% of all ‘scientists,’ worldwide] — 3,146 responded, 77 of whom claimed to be “climate scientists”. Of those 77, two answered “no” and 75 answered “yes”. The remaining 3,069 said they “did not know enough to say yes or no”. Thus, 75 pf 77 = 97% (voila…!!), but 75 of 3,146 = 2.4% and 75 of 10,257 = 0.73%. So, which number should we believe? The article [Doran & Zimmerman, Am Geophys Union 2009; 90: 22 doi:10.1029/2009EO030002] concludes there is a “97% consensus by knowledgeable scientists” that “anthropogenic global warming is real.”


Dear Daniel: The ‘all scientists agree’ meme has been used since 1988 — when Newsweek made this claim on its cover. It gives lazy people a convenient “out” from having to study, or even think about, this issue. Puga’s comment is particularly silly. The proxy data on “global atmospheric temperatures” can hardly be resolved during 100 years of measurements; so, of course, it indicates ‘slower’ warming. Even the “atmospheric temperature” record — which has been coarsely derived from “a few surface stations” data — does not show warming as rapid as that which occurs between 10 am and 3pm. ——Best wishes, Dick

Steve, one point you (and most scientists and layman) are confused about — is that the vast majority of scientists who are knowleageable in climatology — are in agreement with these conclusions by the CO2 Coalition. Those believing that most of our global warming is “man-made and not part of Earth’s normal Milankovich Cycles” — (i.e. 800,000 years of ice-core data showing: ~100,000 years of Glacial, then ~15,000 years of Interglacial Period) — is in the range of perhaps 20-30%. Of course, we are presently enjoying one of those Interglacial Periods today. 😊

Moreover, atmospheric CO2 plays a very small, if even detectable, role in global temperatures. Professors Lindzen, Happer and/or Fulks can correct me if I’m wrong — about either the “consensus” artifact or the “CO2” artifact (even though magazines such as Science, Nature, Sci Am, and Nat Geographic unfortunately ‘push’ these artifacts as the truth).


Let me chime in, for what it’s worth. When I was an undergrad at UCLA, we had a famous professor, Angela Davis, who would often preach the virtues of communism outside while I was eating lunch. Communism at the time was not a very politically popular view. But academic freedom allowed her to be a professor and speak her mind, and she had some very interesting stuff to say, although she did not convince me to become a communist.

I am not an expert on climate change. Like the average layman, I know that the vast majority of experts do believe that climate change is real, bad, and man-made. However, Dan put me in contact with some experts, with stellar credentials, and they had a very different view. I found what they had to say was indeed science-based and worth listening to.

Truth is that, despite their arguments, I am still inclined to side with the majority. But I learned a lot by listening. There are indeed some benefits to high CO2 levels, like plants do really like it.

As scientists, we are obliged to keep an open mind and to listen to all sides. Steve

This petition is is based on the work over the last 10 years by the authors and the work by others whom they cite. It is brilliant. It was released just yesterday. It’s unbelievably good. If you’re a skeptic like me, these days you’ll want something neutral about their organization. Here it is: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change – Wikipedia. Read the study link(139-page pdf file) below. It is magnificent. Bill

Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 10:21:35 PM

Alvaro: As you know, these GEITP pages are always open to scientific discussion, not political or emotional discussion. The theme of these GEITP pages is gene-environment interactions (as well as fraud and corruption in science). In the case of this exciting news item, the environmental signal is CO2 and the genes in genetic pathways of plants respond to this signal, which they need for their life cycle/photosynthesis. Then they excrete O2, which all (aerobic) animals need for their life cycle. At the present atmospheric CO2 levels of 414 ppm, plants are still ~25% “starved” and in fact will thrive far better at around 2,000 ppm CO2. It is a fact that, satellite measurements of the area around the Sahara Desert from 1979 to the present have shown “at least 15% greater greening” due to the rising atmospheric CO2 levels.

Have you read the 139-page petition by the very large number of authors (including 268 references) who have spent years compiling these scientific data? If not, I recommend that you do so. It is a masterpiece. If there is any reference, any figure, any concept that you disagree with (from a scientific point of view) — please let me know, and we can discuss it on a rational basis.

If this information “is unwelcome,” you have several choices:

[1] I understand that the University of Cincinnati now has Safe Spaces — for students and faculty who are “offended” by anything they read or hear. In one of those Safe Spaces, you’ll find plenty of comfort (i.e. warm tea, teddy bears to cuddle, soft music, and dim lights). Then, when you are no longer offended, you can leave the Safe Space.

[2] When you see an informational email that you dislike, you can quickly hit “delete” before reading (this would be the equivalent of an ostrich reflexively sticking his head in the sand).

[3] If you find a fact that you don’t believe, you can express that, and we’ll find a climatologist who can answer that question for you.

[4] Your statement, “That Center is a mouth for the oil companies, particularly Exxon” — is the #1 typical (political) response by global warming alarmists, and it has no scientific merit. I am “copying” three professors of climatology who are members of the CO2 Coalition — none of whom during their entire careers has taken one dime, ever, from Big Oil or any other energy company. We invite you to ask any one of them any question(s) that you might have.


From: AP
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 11:32 AM

Dan: You show a typical case of “throwing the stone and hiding the hand”. The fact that your email is restricted says to me that you are afraid to open up discussion. Typical attitude. That Center is a mouth for the oil companies, particularly Exxon. Your Blog on GxE is welcome, spare me the rest of your production, it is unwelcome. Alvaro

From: Nebert, Daniel (nebertdw)
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 10:48 AM

This news — which just came out this week — is for those who are interested in “clean air” — but also a common-sense approach to public policy, based on scientific facts. This news is also for those of us interested in a healthier planet. 😊


The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (hereafter, Center) announces it has filed a petition with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), asking it to repeal its Endangerment Finding for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (74 FR 66,496, Dec 15, 2009).

More than ten years have elapsed since the EPA Administrator made this judgment in its so-called CO2 Endangerment Finding. During that time a considerable amount of scientific research has been conducted on the potential impacts of rising greenhouse gases on humanity and the natural world. The additional knowledge obtained from such research and observations — reveal quite clearly that rising greenhouse gases do not represent what EPA identified in 2009 to be a current or future threat to public welfare.

According to the Center’s Chairman, Dr. Craig Idso, who is the lead author of the petition, “Multiple observations made over the past decade confirm the projected risks and adverse consequences of rising greenhouse gases are failing to materialize. The truth is, in stark contrast to the Endangerment Finding — CO2 emissions and fossil fuel use during the Modern Era have actually enhanced life and improved humanity’s standard of living. And they will likely continue to do so as more fossil fuels are utilized.”

The 139-page petition by the Center highlights multiple peer-reviewed scientific studies in support of this thesis. In particular, the petition shows (1) there is nothing unusual or unnatural about Earth’s current warmth or rate of warming, (2) historic and modern records of atmospheric CO2 and temperature violate established principles of causation, (3) model-based temperature projections since 1979 artificially inflate predictions of warming (compared to observations) by a factor of at least three, invalidating the models and all their ancillary claims associated with greenhouse gas-induced warming, and that (4) key predicted adverse effects of greenhouse gas-induced warming, including extreme weather events, temperature induced mortality and sea level rise, are not occurring — despite EPA predictions they should be worsening.

The petition also presents compelling evidence that CO2 emissions and fossil energy use provide critical benefits that act to enhance health and welfare for humanity and the natural world. According to Dr. Idso, “Without adequate supplies of low-cost centralized energy derived from fossil fuels, few, if any, of the major technological and innovative advancements of the past two centuries — that have enhanced and prolonged human life — could have occurred. Additionally, without the increased CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use over the past two centuries, Earth’s terrestrial biosphere would be nowhere near as vigorous or productive as it is today. Rather, it would be devoid of the growth-enhancing, water-saving and stress-alleviating benefits that it has reaped in managed and unmanaged ecosystems — from rising levels of atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution began.”

Such demonstrable facts presented in the Center’s petition provide clear evidence that EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding is scientifically flawed. Consequently, the Center calls upon the EPA to overturn its 2009 Endangerment Finding.

The petition can be viewed or downloaded at:

This entry was posted in Center for Environmental Genetics. Bookmark the permalink.