The In depth Story Behind a Climate Fraud

Summary

This video script critically examines the oft-cited claim that 97% of scientists agree on human-caused climate change being a serious crisis. It meticulously dissects various studies purported to support this consensus, revealing how their findings have been misrepresented or diluted. The script highlights that while there is widespread agreement on basic climate science principles, the alleged 97% consensus on climate change being a dangerous, man-made crisis is a fallacy. It argues that the consensus narrative has been weaponized to stifle scientific debate and marginalize dissenting voices, contrary to the principles of open inquiry.

Takeaways

• 🌡️ The claim that 97% of scientists agree on man-made climate change being a dangerous crisis is misleading and not supported by the actual studies cited.
• 📊 Many studies cited for the 97% consensus only found agreement on basic facts like CO2 being a greenhouse gas and human activities impacting climate, but not on the extent of human causation or the urgency of the issue.
• 🔬 Among surveys of climate scientists and experts specifically, the percentage agreeing humans are the primary cause of global warming is much lower than 97%.
• 🤥 Statements claiming consensus from scientific organizations often did not accurately represent the views of their members through proper surveys.
• ⚖️ The push for consensus discourages legitimate scientific debate and dissent on unsettled aspects of climate change.
• 📈 There is widespread agreement on basic climate science facts, but disagreement and uncertainty remain on the magnitude of human impact, future projections, and appropriate policy responses.
• 🏆 Scientific conclusions should be based on evidence and rigorous arguments, not appeals to constructed consensus narratives.
• 🚫 The 97% consensus claim is often exaggerated and misrepresented by politicians, activists, and media to portray unanimous expert agreement on climate change being a human-caused crisis.
• 💰 There are potential personal and professional costs for climate scientists who challenge the prevailing narrative of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
• 🤷‍♂️ Overall, the video script argues that the 97% consensus claim is an overstated statistic not accurately reflecting the diversity of views among scientists on key aspects of the climate change debate.

Q & A

What is the 97% consensus claim about?

The claim is that 97% of the world's scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous.

How did the 97% consensus claim originate?

The claim seems to have originated from a 2004 study by Naomi Oreskes, which found that 75% of scientific articles endorsed the idea that human activities were affecting the Earth's climate. However, this finding was later misrepresented by Al Gore in his film 'An Inconvenient Truth' as a consensus that climate change is a serious problem caused by humans.

What did the 2009 University of Illinois survey find?

The survey found that 90% of respondents agreed that global temperatures had risen since the pre-1800s, while only 82% agreed that human activity was a significant contributing factor. Among meteorologists, only 64% agreed that human activity was a significant factor.

What were the findings of the 2013 John Cook study?

The study claimed to have examined 12,000 scientific papers and found that 97% endorsed the consensus that greenhouse gases were at least partly responsible for global warming. However, the study set a very low bar, and only 1 in 200 papers actually claimed that humans caused most of the observed global warming.

What did the 2012 American Meteorological Society survey reveal?

The survey found that only 52% of respondents believed that global warming over the 20th century had happened and was mostly man-made. The remaining 48% either thought it was mostly natural, didn't think it happened, or were unsure.

Why is the 97% consensus claim considered problematic?

The claim is considered problematic because it oversimplifies and misrepresents the actual survey data, which shows much less agreement on the specifics of climate change being a man-made and urgent crisis. The claim is often used to stifle scientific debate and dissenting views.

What does the script suggest about the statements from scientific societies supporting the consensus?

The script suggests that the statements from scientific societies supporting the consensus were not based on surveys of their members but were instead issued by a small number of activists using committee positions to make it appear as though their views were shared by all members.

What does the script argue is the real problem regarding the 97% consensus claim?

The script argues that the real problem is not the lack of consensus, but the dishonest bullying campaign to stifle scientific debate by misrepresenting the level of agreement and attacking dissenting views.

What does the script suggest about the consequences of dissenting from the prevailing narrative on human-caused warming?

The script suggests that scientists who contest the prevailing narrative on human-caused warming or produce smaller estimates of its impact are likely to end up on a McCarthyite blacklist of 'deniers' and face personal and professional costs, including abuse and harassment.

What is the script's overall message regarding the 97% consensus claim?

The script's overall message is that the 97% consensus claim is a misrepresentation of the actual survey data and is being used as a tool to suppress scientific debate and dissenting views on climate change, rather than promoting an honest and open discussion based on evidence and quality arguments.

Outlines

00:00

🔎 The Origin and Validity of the '97% Scientific Consensus' Claim

This paragraph introduces the widely cited claim that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous. It questions the validity of this claim by examining the sources and methodology behind it. The paragraph highlights that the original study by Naomi Oreskes in 2004 found only 75% of papers endorsed the idea of human impact on climate, and Al Gore misrepresented this in his book. It suggests that the 97% figure is a fiction and does not accurately represent the consensus among scientists on the urgency and causes of climate change.

05:01

🧐 Dissecting the 97% Consensus Studies

This paragraph delves deeper into the studies and surveys used to support the 97% consensus claim. It critically examines the methodologies and findings of various studies, including the University of Illinois survey, the John Cook et al. study, and others. The paragraph highlights issues such as narrow survey questions, biased sampling, and misrepresentation of results. It argues that these studies do not accurately capture the diversity of opinions among scientists on the extent, causes, and urgency of climate change. The paragraph suggests that the 97% figure is misleading and does not reflect the true level of consensus on the specific claim of man-made, dangerous climate change.

10:03

⚖️ Exposing Biases and Suppression of Dissent

This paragraph discusses the broader implications of the 97% consensus claim. It highlights the potential biases and political pressures faced by climate experts who question or dissent from the prevailing narrative. The paragraph cites warnings from experts like Jose Duarte about the negative consequences of claiming consensus and the potential for suppression of dissenting views. It argues that the 97% claim is used as a tool to stifle scientific debate and marginalize skeptical perspectives. The paragraph emphasizes the importance of open discourse, questioning, and considering diverse viewpoints in the scientific process.

15:04

🌐 The Need for Evidence-Based Discourse

The final paragraph underscores the importance of focusing on evidence and reasoned arguments rather than relying on questionable consensus claims. It acknowledges the diversity of opinions among experts and suggests that the quality of arguments and evidence should take precedence over claims of majority consensus. The paragraph emphasizes the need for open and rigorous scientific debate, particularly on issues with significant policy implications. It concludes by advocating for careful consideration of dissenting views and a commitment to evidence-based discourse in addressing complex issues like climate change.

Keywords

💡Consensus

A consensus refers to a generally agreed-upon opinion or position on a particular topic or issue. In the context of this video, the term relates to the widely cited claim that 97% of scientists agree that human-caused climate change is occurring and poses a significant threat. The video scrutinizes and challenges this supposed consensus, questioning the methodology and interpretation of studies used to support the 97% figure.

💡Survey

A survey is a research method used to gather data from a sample of subjects through questions or prompts. The video examines several surveys that purportedly demonstrate the 97% scientific consensus on climate change. It critiques the wording of survey questions, sample sizes, and interpretations of the survey results, arguing that these studies do not provide strong evidence for the claimed consensus.

💡Greenhouse gas

Greenhouse gases are gases in the Earth's atmosphere that trap heat from the sun, contributing to the greenhouse effect and global warming. The video acknowledges that there is widespread agreement among scientists that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have increased its concentration in the atmosphere. However, it argues that this agreement does not necessarily translate into a consensus on the extent or severity of human-caused climate change.

💡Global warming

Global warming refers to the long-term rise in the Earth's average surface temperature due to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The video discusses the degree of scientific agreement on whether global warming has occurred, and whether it is primarily caused by human activities. It suggests that while there is consensus on some aspects of global warming, there is ongoing debate and uncertainty regarding its magnitude, impacts, and the appropriate policy responses.

💡Climate change

Climate change is a broad term that encompasses long-term shifts in temperature, precipitation, and other aspects of the Earth's climate system. The video examines the claim that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is happening, is caused primarily by human activities, and poses a dangerous threat. It argues that this claim oversimplifies the complexities and nuances within the scientific community regarding the causes, impacts, and urgency of addressing climate change.

💡Peer-reviewed

Peer-reviewed refers to a process in which scientific research or publications are evaluated and scrutinized by other experts in the same field before being accepted for publication. The video mentions that some of the studies purporting to show the 97% consensus examined peer-reviewed scientific articles. However, it questions the methodologies and interpretations used in these studies, suggesting that the peer-review process does not necessarily validate the claimed consensus.

💡Scientific consensus

A scientific consensus is a collective agreement or position on a particular scientific issue or theory, based on the accumulation of evidence and expert analysis. The video challenges the notion that there is a genuine scientific consensus on the severity and urgency of human-caused climate change, arguing that the purported 97% figure is misleading and does not accurately reflect the diversity of opinions and ongoing debates within the scientific community.

💡Climate skeptic

A climate skeptic is someone who questions or expresses doubt about the prevailing scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, its impacts, or the need for immediate action to mitigate it. The video suggests that climate skeptics are often marginalized or labeled as "deniers" for challenging the claimed 97% consensus, despite potentially raising valid scientific arguments or uncertainties.

💡Consensus slogan

The term "consensus slogan" is used in the video to refer to the oft-repeated claim that 97% of scientists agree on human-caused climate change being a serious threat. The video argues that this slogan has become a rhetorical tool used to shut down debate and discredit dissenting voices, rather than accurately reflecting the state of scientific opinion on the complexities of climate change.

💡Statistical manipulation

Statistical manipulation refers to the selective or misleading use of statistical data or methods to support a particular narrative or conclusion. The video accuses some studies purporting to demonstrate the 97% consensus of engaging in statistical manipulation, such as cherry-picking data, using flawed sampling techniques, or misrepresenting the scope and conclusions of the research.

Highlights

The claim that 97% of the world's scientists agree on climate change being real, man-made, and dangerous is widely cited, but the details behind this consensus are unclear.

Most scientists agree that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, that the Earth has warmed in the last 160 years, and that humans affect their surroundings, but there is less agreement on whether we face a crisis.

The 97% claim seems to have originated from a study by Naomi Oreskes in 2004, which found that 75% of 928 scientific articles endorsed the idea that human activities affect the climate.

Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' misrepresented Oreskes' study, claiming it proved 100% of scientists believe global warming is a serious problem, which it did not.

A 2009 survey of over 10,000 earth scientists found that 90% agreed global temperatures have risen since the pre-1800s, but only 82% believed human activity is a significant contributing factor.

The often-cited 97% consensus figure came from the 2009 survey, where 75 out of 77 self-described 'climate experts' agreed that humans are partly responsible for warming, but this was only 2% of the respondents.

Another study in 2013 by John Cook claimed that 97% of scientific papers endorsed the consensus that greenhouse gases were partly responsible for global warming, but the criteria were low and only 1 in 200 papers actually said humans caused most of the observed warming.

A survey by the American Meteorological Society found that only 52% of its members believed global warming over the 20th century was mostly man-made.

Statements from science organizations claiming consensus are not based on surveys of their members, but rather issued by small groups of activists.

The talk of a 97% consensus amounts to a dishonest campaign to stifle scientific debate when it is most needed.

Scientists who question the prevailing narrative on human-caused warming face personal and professional costs, including being labeled as 'deniers'.

What matters is the evidence and quality of arguments from experts, not the perceived percentage agreeing with a particular view.

There is wide agreement on the basic facts (CO2 is a greenhouse gas, Earth has warmed, humans affect climate), but active debate on the extent, impacts, and policy responses.

The 2009 survey found that only 64% of meteorologists believed human activity was a significant contributing factor to global warming.

An analysis by Jose Duarte found that the 2013 study by John Cook diluted the sample by including non-experts, making the results meaningless as a measure of what scientists think.

Transcripts

[Music]

the claim that 97% of the world's

scientists agree is pretty much the Ace

of Trumps in the whole climate debate

after all who's going to argue against a

consensus that strong backed by so many

experts but what exactly are they

supposed to agree on if you look behind

the curtain no one seems sure what the

experts actually said or who they are or

[Music]

[Music]

anything at first glance it seems

straightforward enough in 2013 President

Barack Obama famously tweeted that quote

97% of scientists agree climate change

is real man-made and dangerous end quote

in 2014 his secretary of state John kery

said 97% of quote the world scientists

tell us this is urgent end quote and

that same year CNN said quote 97% of

scientists agree that climate change is

happening now that it's damaging the

planet and that it's man-made end

quote that's pretty much what most

people think when they hear the 97%

slogan every scientist believe man-made

climate change is an urgent

crisis but there are millions of

scientists in the world how many exactly

were surveyed when were they surveyed

who did it and what exactly did they

agree on let's find out I'm John Robson

and this is a climate discussion Nexus

fact check on the 97% consensus

slogan to be to begin with there are

some ideas that pretty much all

scientists accept for instance that

birds are descended from dinosaurs

though that idea was once dismissed as

highly eccentric and when it comes to

climate you don't need a poll to tell

you that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse

gas meaning it likely has some overall

warming effect that's been known since

the mid 1800s and if you did do a survey

you would find overwhelming scientific

agreement on that point also there are

lots of ation that the world is somewhat

warmer now than it was in the mid 1800s

the end of a natural cooling period

called the little Ice

Age finally virtually nobody disputes

that humans have changed the environment

of our planet by releasing emissions

into the air changing the land surface

putting things in the water and so forth

these aren't controversial ideas and

they're accepted even by most climate

Skeptics what we don't accept is that

any of them prove Pro that humans are

the only cause of global warming or that

climate change is a dangerous

threat if 97% of scientists believe that

it would be troubling though even so

we'd still have to find some plan whose

benefits outweighed its costs at any

event that level of consensus that the

problem was man-made and Urgent would

certainly be noteworthy but the thing is

they don't agree on that a close look at

what survey data we have and there isn't

much tells us yes there's a great deal

of agreement that CO2 is a greenhouse

gas to some degree that the Earth has

warmed in the last 160 years and that

humans affect their

surroundings but that same survey data

also tell us there's far less agreement

on everything else including whether we

Face a crisis so where did this 97%

claim come from and why is it so widely

repeated

[Music]

the 97% claim seems to have begun with a

historian of science named Naomi oresky

who in 2004 claimed she'd looked at 928

articles about climate change in

scientific journals that 75% of them

endorsed the consensus view that earth's

climate is being affected by human

activities and that none directly

disputed it by 2006 in Al gor and in

convenient truth this finding had

somehow morphed into a massive study of

every scientific article in a

peer-reviewed journal written on global

warming for the last 10 years and they

took a big sample of 10% 928 articles

and you know the number of those that

disagreed with the scientific consensus

that we're causing global warming and

that it's a serious problem out of the

928

zero that was a fib Gore took a study

that found 75% endorsed the idea that

humans have some effect on climate and

turned it into proof that 100% of

scientists believe it's a serious

problem it does no such

[Music]

thing and nor did a handful of other

surveys on the subject for instance 5

years later in 2009 a pair of

researchers at the University of

Illinois sent an online survey to over

10,000 earth scientists asking two

simple questions do you agree that

global temperatures have generally risen

since the pre

1800s and do you think that human

activity is a significant contributing

factor they didn't single out greenhouse

gases they didn't explain what the term

significant meant and they didn't refer

to danger or crisis so what was the

result of the

3,146 responses they received 90% % said

yes to the first question that global

temperatures had risen since the little

ice age and only 82% said yes to the

second that human activity was a

significant contributing

factor interestingly among

meteorologists only 64% said yes to the

second meaning a third of the experts in

the study of weather patterns who

replied didn't think humans play a

significant role in global warming let

alone a dominant

one what got the most media attention

was that among 77 respondents who

described themselves as climate experts

75 said yes to the second question 75

out of 77 is

97% okay it didn't get any media

attention that they took 77 out of 3,146

responses but that's the key statistical

trick they found a 97% consensus among

2% of the survey respondents and even so

it was only only that there had been

some warming since the 1800s which

virtually nobody denies and that humans

are partly responsible these experts

didn't say it was dangerous or urgent

because they weren't asked so far the

claim that 97% of world scientists are

saying there's a climate crisis is pure

fiction but wait you say there must be

more yes there is but not

[Music]

much another survey appeared in 2003 1

by Australian researcher John Cook and

his co-authors in which they claim to

have examined about 12,000 scientific

papers related to climate change and

found that 97% endorsed the consensus

view that greenhouse gases were at least

partly responsible for global warming

this study generated headlines around

the world and it was the one to which

Obama's Tweet was referring but here

again appearances were deceiving 2third

of the papers that cook and his

colleagues examined expressed no View at

all in the

consensus of the remaining

34% the authors claimed that 33%

endorsed the

consensus divide 33 by 34 and you get

97% but this result is essentially

meaningless because they set the bar so

[Music]

low the survey authors didn't ask if

climate change was dangerous or quote

man-made unquote they only asked if a

given paper accepted that humans have

some effect on the climate which as

already noted is

uncontroversial it could mean as little

as accepting the urban heat island

effect so a far better question would be

how many of the studies claimed that

humans have caused most of the observed

global warming and oddly we do know

because buried in the author's data was

the answer a mere 64 out of nearly

12,000 papers

that's not 97% it's 1 half of 1% it's 1

in

[Music]

200 and it gets worse in a follow-up

study climatologist David leg Gates read

those 64 papers and found that a third

of them didn't even say what cook and

his team claimed only 41 actually

endorsed The View that global warming is

mostly man-made and we still haven't got

to it being dangerous

that part of the survey results was

simply invented by politicians and

activists other researchers have

condemned the cook study on other

grounds too for instance Economist

Richard tol showed that over 34 of the

papers counted as endorsing the even the

weak consensus actually said nothing at

all on the subject and evidence later

emerged that the authors of the paper

were drafting press releases about their

findings before before they even started

doing the research which indicates an

alarming level not of warming or of

consensus but of

bias the reality is that neither this

study nor a handful of others like it

prove that 97% of scientists believe

climate change is mostly man-made let

alone that it's a

crisis the fact that people who claim to

put such stock in settled science except

such obvious statistical Hocus Pocus is

both astounding and

disappointing so what do climate experts

really

think the year before Obama sent out his

tweet the American Meteorological

Society AMS surveyed its 7,000 members

they got about 1,800

responses of those only 52% said they

think global warming over the 20th

century has happened and is mostly

man-made the remaining 48% either think

it happened but is mostly natural or it

didn't happen or they don't know and

while it's possible that the three qus

who didn't answer split the same way as

those who did it's also possible that

committed alarmists are more likely to

answer such surveys in any case it's a

small sample even of AMS members let

alone World

scientists there was one more survey a

few years later by the Netherlands

environment agency that claimed 66% of

climate experts believed humans were

most ly responsible for warming since

1950 which Falls far short of 97% even

if it outperforms the other

studies a social psychologist named Jose

darte who specializes in survey design

published an analysis of that one

pointing out that they diluted the

sample by including large numbers of

psychologists philosophers political

scientists and other non-experts making

their results meaningless as a measure

of what scientists think

[Music]

just as we find that the people who site

that 97% number are overwhelmingly not

trained scientists certainly not trained

statisticians so we're no further ahead

than when we

began most experts agree on the basics

namely that carbon dioxide is a

greenhouse gas and probably causes some

warming and that humans have some impact

on climate probably including some

warming

but they actively debate the rest how

much warming will there be is it a

problem should we try to stop it or

adapt or wait and

see these are all important questions

and we need good

answers and there's the claim that many

of the world's National sciencey

representing hundreds of thousands of

scientists across the globe have issued

statements supporting the consensus

about global warming and demanding

government efforts to cut admissions the

problem is not a single one of those

societies took a survey of their members

before issuing their statements in the

name of their members the statements

were put out by a small number of

activists using their committee

positions to make it look as though

their views were shared by all the

world's experts but if they

are why didn't these authors survey

their members before publishing the

statements there are a couple of other

studies that claim to prove a consensus

but they run into the same problems

all they show is wide agreement on the

uncontroversial bits they offer no

information but whether a majority of

scientists think global warming is a

crisis and then they're spun wildly by

non-scientists to tell us things they

don't begin to say often about questions

they didn't even attempt to investigate

the problem isn't just that we don't

know what percentage of scientists

agrees with this or that statement about

global warming it's something much

worse all this talk of a 97% ensus

amounts to a dishonest bullying campaign

to stifle scientific debate just when we

need it most because the question looms

so large in public policy as physicist

Richard fainman once said quote I would

rather have questions that can't be

answered that answers that can't be

questioned and that's especially true

when we're asked to take drastic action

based on those

answers not long ago that survey expert

I mentioned earlier Jose dwarte warned

fellow scientists about the negative

consequences of claiming consensus he

said quote it is ill advised to report a

consensus as though it is an aggregation

of independent

judgments humans are an ultrasocial

species and descent is far costlier than

a scent to a perceived

majority a scientist who contests the

prevailing narrative on human caused

warming or merely produces smaller

estimates will likely end up on a

mccarthyite blacklist of quote deniers

andot

quote self-described mainstream climate

scientists refer the public to such

lists implicitly endorsing the smearing

of their

colleagues this is disturbing and

unheard of in other Sciences end

quote the unfortunate truth is that

there is strong political pressure for

climate experts not to question claims

of impending doom those who do so face

deep personal and professional costs

including a barrage of abuse that can be

highly unpleasant for people who mostly

wanted to devote their lives to the

quiet pursuit of knowledge not to noisy

pmics and that means we should listen

carefully to them when they feel

compelled to speak out

anyway whether they represent 50% or 10%

or 3% of experts what matters is the

evidence they bring and the quality of

their

arguments and on that I would hope we

have 100% agreement

for the climate discussion Nexus I'm

John

[Music]

Robson that's

right