Don’t believe everything you read
Is the the Earth really warming?
IPCC release Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report
Former NASA scientist predicts ‘dark winters’ ahead
UPDATED 30th September
The fourth article in this series on climate change looks at the 97% consensus. Is it true that 97 percent of climate change scientists agree we are the cause of global warming, and why is it so important to have this consensus?
“Real scientists are sceptical by nature. We don’t believe what our colleagues tell us until we verify it for ourselves. Scientists honestly develop views of how the world works and they test those views by experimentation. As a result of approximately 150 years of climate science, the vast majority of scientists are convinced that humans are a major cause of climate change.” Professor John Abraham, University of Minnesota (2013)
Proponents of anthropological global warming regularly point out that 97% of climate scientists are of the consensus that climate change does exist, and that we are responsible.
However this figure is hotly disputed by sceptics, who suggest the actual number is far lower and lessening each year.
Perhaps foremost in this particular debate is the consensus refers to climate scientists, and or those that have published peer reviewed work on climate change and or anthropological global warming (AGW).
The figure does not refer to all scientists.
The consensus figure of 97 percent has been arrived at through a series of studies and surveys that have been carried out by various people and organisations over a number of years.
The first, published in 2005 by Professor Naomi Oreskes, looked at articles published between 1993 and 2003 using the keyword phrase “global climate change.” Of the 928 abstracts Ms Oreskes read, she found none which rejected human-caused global warming.
In 2009 a survey consisting of two questions was conducted by researchers at the University of Illinois for the American Geophysical Union.
An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists of which 3146 took part. Of those only 79 were climate scientists and 75 out of 77 (97.4%), answered yes to the following question. “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
While it may be true that 97.4 percent of 77 climate scientists agreed with the question, the overall response from the 3146 surveyed was only 82 percent. Although the researchers were justified in giving more weight to the opinion of climate scientists, taken on its own this survey is hardly compelling evidence that this is the consensus among climate change scientists globally.
In 2012 James Powell – who was appointed to the National Science Board twice by conservative US Presidents (Reagan, Bush Snr), conducted a study using similar criteria to Professor Oreskes. Although Powell searched for, ‘peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that had the keyword phrases “global warming” or “global climate change”’.
He found 13,950 articles, and of those only 24 ‘clearly rejected global warming or endorsed a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming.’
The fourth was carried out by Sceptical Science in 2013. John Cook and looked at over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers from 2003-2012. They found that of the literature that took a stance either way on human-caused global warming, 97 percent were in the affirmative.
While any one of these studies or surveys on their own is not enough evidence of such a consensus, all four conducted over a period of a decade yielding almost identical results, builds a very strong case.
All four studies have been vigorously challenged by sceptics. One of the most vociferous (particularly of the fourth), being Lord Christopher Monckton, a British policy adviser, writer and columnist.
Although not having any formal training in science, Monckton is one of the most cited and widely published climate sceptics on the planet. He has even testified to the U.S. Senate and Congress concerning climate change on multiple occasions.
Monckton claimed in an article titled ‘The Collapsing ‘Consensus’’ that the Sceptical Science study showed that consensus among climate scientists had actually fallen from 75 percent to 45 percent.
However Monckton has misrepresented the report, as he has done on many previous occasions, when challenging the validity of any given theory connecting climate change to humankind.
In 2009 Monckton was giving a speech at the Minnesota Free Market Institute. In the audience was John Abraham, a professor of thermal and fluid sciences at the University of St. Thomas School of Engineering.
Abraham later recalled that Monckton was a gifted speaker and very convincing. “If I didn’t know the science, I would have believed him,” he recalled later.
“Frankly, the non-scientists in the audience didn’t have a chance. They had no way of knowing what he said was not true. I felt Monckton took advantage of them and he knew he was taking advantage of them.”
Professor Abraham then spent months comparing citations Monckton had used in his arguments to the actual papers he was referring to. He then contacted the authors for a response. The following year he released a video rebutting Monckton’s theories.
In 2011 during an Australian speaking tour Monckton gave a speech at Notre Dame University in Fremantle. Many of those that attended described Monckton as “pompous” and “crazy”, and claimed his arguments contained “glaring holes”.
Law student Laura Cassie, who attended the event with her sister Alex said there was much head shaking going on and noises of disagreement from the crowd during the speech.
“The people who were in there supporting him were very, very vehemently against any government involvement in anything. It was very easy for him to score points by saying the government is sticking their nose into our business,” she said.
Alex said Lord Monckton failed to reference his work or clearly explain the details. She said his speech was like being in a first-year biology lecture waiting to pull apart the subject.
It is also worth noting that Monckton receives payment for his speeches, while the afore mentioned Professor Abraham does not. Australia’s richest woman Gina Rinehart payed $30,000 to Monckton for this particular speaking engagement. The same Gina Rinehart who, if she had her way, would use nuclear weapons to mine iron ore.
The 97 percent consensus figure was again challenged in June of this year after Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton released a statement in the society’s March newsletter.
It in part said, “after an extensive and extended consultation with Society members, the GSA Executive Committee has decided not to proceed with a Climate Change Position Statement.”
The Australian’s environmental editor Graham Lloyd was the first to pick up the story. Lloyd’s article, “Earth scientists split on climate change statement“, was subsequently taken up by Andrew Bolt, Jo Nova, Watts up with that, and numerous blogs.
Almost all began with Lloyd’s original lead. “Australia’s peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.”
They all then go on various tangents to support their claim that the 97 percent consensus is completely false. However every one of them is either distorting, exaggerating or omitting facts, including the original.
Firstly, this is a society of geologists, yet as can be seen from the lead and heading they are referred to as ‘Earth scientists’. leading the reader to believe they are something they are not. Yes they are ‘earth scientists’, but they are not climate scientists as the 97 percent consensus refers to.
It is also worth noting, of all earth scientists, economic geologists (those who study geology with a view to its commercial viability), are the most sceptical. Such as perhaps Australia’s most well known skeptic, Ian Plimer,
It would appear however that is not the case of non-economic geologists. All of the above articles also point out the refusal to release the statement was largely based on ‘letters to the editor’ in the society’s quarterly newsletters.
A look at the last eight newsletters tells a completely different story. Out of 26 letters that were submitted concerning global warming and or climate change, 20 of them believed in anthropological global warming, while only four were against, and two were neutral.
Indeed a survey by the society themselves found 75.6 percent of members disagreed with the society’s non stance on anthropological global warming.
A number of contributors laid the blame of the non statement on those within the society with a vested interest in mining. A very influential group within the society.
Below are excerpts of four of the comments from the newsletters. Full versions of the society’s newsletters can be found here.
“I am confounded that of all the scientific groups, geologists seem the least accepting of anthropogenic climate change.” Peter Lane (2013)
“We must acknowledge that humans are affecting Earth’s climate in our Climate Change Statement. I would have expected members of the Geological Society of Australia to use evidence-based science before making statements on climate change.” David Denham (2013)
“It is curious that Marc Hendrickx and Phillip Playford, in the March 2014 issue [TAG 170] do not attempt to rebut anthropogenic global warming (AGW) by referring to peer-reviewed articles in the scientific literature. This is presumably because there is no body of peer-reviewed science refuting AGW.” Stephen Sheppard (2014)
“The statement is a whitewash, a complete and total capitulation to the climate-change deniers and/or mining giants/political bosses, and is gutless, totally gutless. Worse, it is not even a document worthy of a scientific organisation.” Martin Van Kranendonk
And although the current statement over rode any prior statement, it did not stop Andrew Bolt from ‘citing’ the society’s 2012 version. Although perhaps ‘cite’ is a bit generous as Bolt has used part of a sentence that suits his agenda, but left the last part off because it did not.
However Monckton, Bolt and their fellow sceptics are not alone when it comes to altering omitting or exaggerating certain facts to suit their agenda.
The IPCC was accused earlier this month by Brandon Shollenberger of altering the data of their AR5 Report. He provides a comparison of the original data alongside the ‘amended’ data.
In 2010 Dr Murari Lal admitted to using non peer reviewed theories in a Nobel Prize winning report released by the IPCC which he co-authored. He stated in the report the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by the year 2035.
The fact is there was no real evidence of this and the theories were nothing more than educated speculation at best. Yet he justified it by saying it was for the benefit of the region.
As Professor Rob MacKenzie from the University of Birmingham noted in an article titled “Climate change: it’s only human to exaggerate, but science itself does not. “There is little difference between politicians and scientists when both are engaged in public advocacy,” he writes.
“Both will use whatever rhetorical devices they have to win an argument,” he says.
Although MacKenzie did not refer to the media, as conveyors of information, they too should be included with politicians and scientists. The two examples shown above are evidence of that.
However he also claims that this is not the case when, “scientists speak publicly through their own very special form of mass media – peer-reviewed literature.”
While admitting peer reviews are, “by no means flawless, it does tend to make scientists cautious in their statements and wary of adversarial debate,” he says.
Although the first two studies that claimed a 97 percent consensus did not purely rely on peer reviewed papers in their findings, the third and fourth did. Yet they did all come to the same conclusion, forming a very strong argument that a 97 percent consensus is indeed the case.
So why is such an emphasis put on the 97 percent consensus?
Research has shown that the perception of consensus by the general public is linked to support for climate policy. If people are aware of an expert consensus on any issue, they are more likely to support taking action to solve the problem. This is particularly true of the climate change debate.
Sceptics and opponents of climate action are well aware of this. In 2002 in a leaked memo from Western Fuels Association, communication strategist Frank Lutz advised Republicans “to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.”
Sceptics often start their argument with a statement along the lines of, “the 97 consensus among scientists is a lie.” Which of course is a misleading statement, easily backed up by real evidence, and therefore very believable.
It puts what seems legitimate doubt into people’s minds through the omission of a single word, or in the case of the Geological Society non-statement example, the use of another.
As has already been established. This is not the claim. The 97 consensus is among climate scientists and those that have published peer reviewed papers. Not all scientists. Although it does appear that the majority agree.
Currently only 45 percent of the public believe there is a 97 percent consensus among climate scientists, even though the evidence strongly suggests that is the case. Is it the figures that are misleading, or the sceptics who challenge them?
However even if the consensus is not as high as 97 percent, what is certain is that the vast majority of climate scientists do believe we are the cause of the global warming.
Indeed there has rarely, if ever been such a consensus amongst scientists on any given scientific issue, and that is cause for concern.
Proponents of AGW have also been at pains to point out the similarities between the climate change debate and that of tobacco last century.
The tobacco giants were continually able to produce experts that would categorically state, and even testify in front of governmental hearings, that smoking did not cause cancer, or any other of the myriad of diseases now associated with it. Despite the ever growing evidence to the contrary.
And we all know how that turned out.
Below are statements on AGW from a number of scientific, governmental and corporate institutions both here in Australia and overseas.
International academies: Joint statement
“Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001).” (2005, 11 international science academies)
The Royal Society
“Climate change is one of the defining issues of our time. It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate.” (2014)
International Coral Reef Science Community
“The international Coral Reef Science Community calls on all governments to ensure the future of coral reefs, through global action to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and via improved local protection of coral reefs. Coral reefs are important ecosystems of ecological, economic and cultural value yet they are in decline worldwide due to human activities. Land-based sources of pollution, sedimentation, overfishing and climate change are the major threats, and all of them are expected to increase in severity.”
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
“Multiple lines of evidence show that global warming continues and that human activities are mainly responsible.” (2014).
Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM)
“The Australian region warming is very similar to that seen at the global scale. Australian land and sea surface temperatures have now warmed about 1 °C, with the majority of the warming occurring since 1950.” (2014)
Australian Academy of Science
“Although the Australian Academy was not involved in the drafting of the statement because it is not a member of this group, we do endorse the concerns expressed in the statement. As recently summarised by the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the increases in global average temperature and sea level are unambiguous and are almost certainly primarily due to greenhouse gas emissions.” (2014)
American Association for the Advancement of Science
“The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” (2006)
American Chemical Society
“Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem.” (2004)
American Geophysical Union
“Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013
American Medical Association
“Our AMA … supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant.” (2013)
American Meteorological Society
“It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.” (2012)
American Physical Society
“The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.” (2007)
The Geological Society of America
“The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.” (2006; revised 2010)
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
“The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” (2005)
U.S. Global Change Research Program
“The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human ‘fingerprints’ also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice.” (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)
Network of African Science Academies (NASAC)
A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.
Australian Psychological Society
“Accepts the consensus of the Australian and international scientific communities that human activities have resulted in substantial global warming over the last 60 years and that the continued growth in greenhouse gas concentrations by these activities is generating a high risk of dangerous climate change .” (2010)Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”
European Union
“The changes that our planet has undergone throughout its history are a result of natural factors like tiny changes in the Earth’s path around the sun, volcanic activity and fluctuations within the climate system. However, humans are having an increasing influence on our climate by burning fossil fuels, cutting down rainforests and farming livestock.”
The Australian Red Cross
” Climate change will have a significant impact on billions of people, in particular, the poor, elderly, physically and mentally ill, on those who rely on climate such as subsistence/commercial farmers, and Indigenous communities, and on those living in areas of extreme climate.” (2009)
Rio Tinto
“Rio Tinto recognises that climate change is occurring and is largely caused by human activities. It poses significant risks for, and in many cases is already affecting, a broad range of human and natural systems.” (2012)
Global Investor Statement on Climate Change
The next article in this series on climate change will look at the human factors that climate scientists claim have instigated a change in our climate over the last 130 years, such as greenhouse gases, deforestation, water contamination, and over farming.
Don’t believe everything you read
JAMIES PAGES 