Study: Claimed warmist consensus of 97.1% actually only 0.3%!

“Inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.”

The abstract is below.

Click to purchase the study.

Science & Education (Springer)
August 2013

Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change

David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.

8 thoughts on “Study: Claimed warmist consensus of 97.1% actually only 0.3%!”

  1. Excellent find, Mr. Milloy. I have never understood the “science” of consensus. I do understand observation, one of the real scientific principals I was taught in, believe it or not, second grade. We had a class called “Introduction to Physical Science”, at a public school! Norris Elementary in Norris, TN was way ahead in actually teaching. Of course that was a long, long time ago.

  2. Consensus has never been science, of course. Therefore, even if you could get every climate scientist in the world to agree that there existed something called “global warming”, without actual hard evidence that consensus would be completely invalid. Unfortunately, there are a lot of folk out there who are happy to let others do their thinking for them. Personally, I rely on guys like you to poke holes in the big picture and then I back it up with a lot of research. Thanks for all the work you do, Steve.

  3. Never forget that at various points in time, the consensus was that the Earth was flat, the sun revolved around the Earth and heavy objects feel faster then light objects. “Science” has always been about proving the consensus wrong so that knowledge could move forward.

  4. All the very merit worthy remarks here can and should be augmented by the the following comment.
    The “consensus” under discussion here is taken from a limited and highly biased population. Most of the the “experts” are considered expert or were appointed to their “expert” position because they were “environmental” fanatics in the first place. One would expect therefore any consensus to be representative of environment fanaticism.
    For example;- Would one expect the College of Cardinals to elect a non Catholic Pope?!
    Frank c Jones

  5. Chris, what an absolutely eloquent and concise description. The bastardization of science by political and ideological forces in this AGW issue is nothing short of criminal.
    And to you, Steve….. thank you for the continuing fight against ignorance and for truth.

  6. The entire idea of consensus as a means of proving a scientific fact is silly to start with. Like most of the AGW hypothesis, reaching the consensus involved moving the goalposts, changing the make up of the teams, relining the field markers, and playing a different game in order to come up with the pre-ordained conclusion. Remove the financial incentive and the interest in this issue fades like a morning fog on a sunny day.

Comments are closed.