97% of climate scientists agree fact or fiction_issue 1_160925

97% of climate scientists agree: fact or fiction
Author: Gordon Hirst
Issue 1: 25/09/16
Page1
97% of climate scientists agree: fact or fiction?
How science goes from myth to reality, then back again
By: Gordon Hirst Bsc. (hons) – Appropriate Technology Consultant
If you even take a vague interest in the climate change debate you will almost certainly be familiar with
this figure which has been reverberating around the media like a hyperbolic sound bite.
The 97% figure is quoted directly from a scientific study “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic
global warming in the scientific literature” (Cook et al 2013)1
. It has been elevated from being the
conclusion of an obscure scientific study to a global meme and has now taken on an almost mystical
significance. It is as much infamous for the legions of skeptics, deniers and refuters as it is for its
advocates. Almost becoming Frankenstein’s monster which eventually consumes and destroys its
creator
Since the now famous tweet2
, this figure has been become part of the popular narrative. Perhaps more
seriously I have also noticed an increasing number of climate change deniers calling foul on climate
change research and suggesting it is a conspiracy perpetuated by the science community for the their
own ends.3
It did strike me that what we seem to be lacking more than anything else is a clear, level-headed debate
over where this figure came from? What is the science behind it? Just how accurate is it? And why has it
been such a divisive focal point for both sides of the argument? It has also afforded me the opportunity
to re-examine my own conviction of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)
Yes: this has been done before but personally if like me you’re a climate change advocate and have
been underwhelmed by the media circus which has descended from professional scientific debate into
heated name calling.
As with polarized nature of main stream media, it appears to be business as usual, support on one side,
denial on the other, there does not appear to be any balanced interpretation. Having declared my

Issue 1: 25/09/16
Page2
allegiance from the start, I will however attempt to conduct the investigation of this argument in the
most even handed and pragmatic fashion possible. I have tried to highlight the flaws in both sides of the
argument and where and how erroneous information creeps in and manifests itself.
To start with, I will cover the basics of just how science works and why it is virtually impossible to
‘conspire’ to falsify scientific studies. This article is constructed on data pulled directly from articles,
documents and papers that appear online. What I am reporting here exists, whether you agree with
what is reported here is not a disagreement with me, it is a disagreement with the original author.
Where I DO express my own opinion I will make that very clear, and I will state what I do believe to be
truly self-evident, you are of course at liberty to disagree with that.
Who him?
What qualifies me to write this article? Good question, the correct answer could be none whatsoever
which puts me in the same group as nearly every commentator who has written an article interpreting
the original paper.
I am an academically qualified engineer with over 30 years’ professional experience. I have been
working in environmental development / renewable energy for the last seven years in poorest parts of
Asia, and I characterize myself as an Appropriate Technology Consultant. For the past three years I have
been engaged in the wacky world of biochar and currently involved in field trials in two different regions
of Thailand. I am not a climate scientist and have never claimed to be, but I do know my way around
scientific papers and have been evaluating results and disseminating information directly from them for
a number of years. This, at the very least, qualifies me better than every single politician or TV
presenter.
What’s to stop you reading a scientific paper directly?
Nothing at all.
The internet will provide you with just about everything you need. It would be handy to have a friend
who has access to an academic database so you will avoid having to pay for any academic papers4
. If you
do this you have done far more research than just about everybody outside of science in this debate. I
would highly recommend anyone to have a go - the more knowledgeable people we have in this debate
the better.
Skeptic and denier
At this point I should importantly distinguish between a skeptic and a denier. A skeptic is “a person
who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual”5
whereas a denier is “a
person who refuses to recognize or acknowledge any reasoned argument’6
.
Being skeptical is an essential part of the human condition, question everything, weigh up the pros and
cons and form your own opinion. A denier on the other hand, will stone wall and will not accept any
argument no matter how many times it is proved to be the case.
All scientists are skeptics, it is an essential part of the raison d’etre. Skeptics are very important to the
scientific process in the same way that opposition parties are an essential part of modern democracy.
They challenge you to be the best you can be, to be rigorous in your methodology and make sure that
your argument is water tight.
I would invite any climate change skeptic to challenge anything I have said in this article. YOU can look
this up.
I would also encourage climate change advocates to follow the same procedure, do not blindly accept
facts as they are presented you. Question the author’s credibility, particularly what is their motivation
and their relative expertise of the subject they are making assertions about. Question Everything!

Issue 1: 25/09/16
Page3
The basics: How science is done
Science and scientific methodology follows a pretty well-defined set of rules7
. This has been developed,
refined and fought over for over a millennia. Its history going back arguably to Ibn al-Haytham8
a 10th
century scholar of ancient from Persia (in modern day Iraq). In the first few centuries there was little
discipline in scientific methodology and more or less relied on the integrity and competence of the
individual. By the time of Christiaan Huygens, Robert Hooke, Isaac Newton and the like were around in
the 17th
Century, things had changed. Science was more complex, there were a lot more scientists
(scholars as they would have been known then) and therefore more disagreement. In order for their
scientific discoveries could be verified, a specific scientific methodology had to be agreed on. Since then
it has been developed into the fairly rigorous system that we use today.
Scientific investigations are very specific pieces of work. A hypotheses is proposed, an experiment is
designed and then, experiments conducted or measurements taken. On completion of the experiment
the data analyzed and conclusions drawn. The results are then written up and presented in a formal
paper. There is little left for open interpretation.
The next bit is real important, the paper is now published in relative journals and invited for peer review.
That is, scientists working in the same or similar field will test the hypotheses using the same
methodology as described in the paper. If they disagree then further research is needed to see where
the error lies. If the results are the same (or similar but verified) then the hypothesis is notionally
confirmed. The more reviews and testing the greater the credibility of the hypothesis and methodology
becomes.
At some point in this process, the scientific evidence becomes so strong it is accepted as scientific fact.
This is very important process as quite often what may seem very significant breakthrough is science,
such as the discovery of cold fusion9
, extra-terrestrial signals10
or human cloning11
and are always picked
up at this stage. The fault can be either attributed to poor science or just a blatant deception. Science is
inherently imperfect, every scientist will tell you that, the standardized methodology tries to eliminate
errors and rouge/ pseudo-science as much as possible, every step from experimental design to methods
of observations is as rigorous as possible. But can never be 100% water tight.
How we perceive science
For the average Joe Blow all science it is almost exclusively presented through the spectrum of the
media. Even if you are an avid reader as publications such as Science and New Scientist, you are still
reading someone else’s perspective. The further we move down the spectrum towards the mainstream
media, the further we move away from the actual science. You are now relying on someone else’s
interpretation of someone else’s interpretation. This can be further exacerbated by the main stream
media’s commendable, but often poorly presented, requirement for balance. This often gives the
impression that the scientific community is divided 50:50 on a particular issue, which in many cases can
be deceptive. We are also subject to a variety of presentation styles, which does not particularly suit the
science community.
Professor Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society (UK) eloquently illustrates this in the excellent BBC
documentary “Science Under attack” 12.
Scientists are generally not the most media savvy individuals in
an increasingly soundbite world. Also, scientists by nature would tend to be the most strident critic of
their own work, to ensure that there assertions are as accurate as possible, whereas their non-scientific
opponents would be more polished in their presentation and generic in their arguments.
The global warming science and debate
Let’s not underestimate this, - climate science and global ecological systems are VERY complex. To
aggregate a global historical picture would be impossible to do from one research area of research

Issue 1: 25/09/16
Page4
alone. The science of global warming has been a consolidation of a profusion of climate science and life
sciences glaciologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, limnologists, geologists and cosmologists to
name but a few. So climate change science and the climate change debate is a conglomeration of
numerous scientific endeavors, with a wide range of disciplines.
The skeptic’s argument “Give me one example of a scientific study where climate change is directly
linked to human activity” is oxymoronic and can never happen.
The idea that increasing levels of CO2 could be effecting the climate has been around since the late 19th
century, however, it was the ground breaking work of David Charles Keeling’s with the publication of
‘The Concentration of Isotopic Abundances of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere’ (CD Keeling, 1960)13
which first quantified the “Greenhouse effect”. Since then, there have been an increasing number of
studies observing the same effects and as you would expect a number which disagreeing with this
observation. Continued research by scientists from a multitude of disciplines continued to support the
hypothesis until 1988 when the UNIPCC14
was created which has formalized the science global climate
change debate.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (UN IPCC) is the global focal point of
climate change science and discussion.
The UN IPCC is an inherently flawed origination; anybody who has had any dealings with the UN will
attest to what an administratively heavy, politically polarized and overly bureaucratic organization it is.
There are no doubt that there are many good and true people in the organization who are attempting to
make the world a better place, but it is hamstrung and global politics, departmental infighting and
unsuitability of many of the people in senior political and administrative positions. This having been said,
it is the global clearing house for the debate and exchange of science in climatology and brings together
thousands of key players directly involved in climate and earth and life sciences.
So that brings us to the source of the “97% scientific consensus” figure
The figure has been lifted directly from the abstract from a report published in 2013:
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
(Cook et al 2013)1 the lead author being Dr. John Cook with other contributors
Note: In Harvard notation this would often be referenced as (Cook et al 2013) giving the name of the
lead author and ‘et al’ the truncation of the latin phrase ‘et alia’ for ‘and others’
Abstract:
“11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global
warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7%
rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing
a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
The ISI15
search generated 12 465 papers. Eliminating papers that were not peer-reviewed (186), not
climate-related (288) or without an abstract (47) reduced the analysis to 11,944 papers written by
29,083 authors and published in 1,980 journals”.
John Cook: Who him?
At the time of writing was completing a PhD in cognitive psychology, researching how people think
about climate change. (March 2016) John Cook is the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global
Change Institute at The University of Queensland.

Issue 1: 25/09/16
Page5
The report is eight page document which is a meta-
analyses, that is the collation of data from other
scientific studies. It does not have any data directly relating to climate studies only the methodology and
statistics tools that were used. The original documents are not referenced in the paper.
Okay; a skeptic would make the following observations conclusions
• Meta study this is a further step away from the real climate science and is very much an
interpretation of the abstract.
• John cook is not a climate scientist and works for a global change institute and is therefore
inherently biased
• The methodology is full of holes and statistical models are open to different interpretations.
• The result is very much related to the interpretation of the abstract
• Inconsistencies with science, i.e. measuring changes and only speculating on the causes.
• Is there inconstant expertise cross over i.e. contributing of reviewing a paper which is
completely out their sphere of expertise i.e. is an oceanographer review a paper by a glaciologist
All valid arguments and many skeptics have questioned the validity of the 97% figure. However it is not
common knowledge that there has been more than one meta-analysis.
Source Science Skeptik16
Working on the very sound principle, the more data that is gathered the more accurate the model is. I
have constructed the following table:
Report Applied respondents Total AGW advocates
Oreskes 200417
928 928 928
Doran 200918
10257 3146 3051
Andregg 201019
1372 1372 1330
Cook 20131
11944 3894 3752
Verheggen 201420
6000 1868 1681
Stenhouse 201421
7,062 1854 1724
Carlton 201522
1868 698 677
Total 39431 13760 13143

Issue 1: 25/09/16
Page6
Concluding consensus = 95.5%
Note: This is a very crude calculation and the original papers vary a lot in scope and methodology. The
data can be calculated many different ways, but even taking the harshest negative model, the results
are fairly conclusive and it does however give a good indication of the strength of the hypothesis.
Politics
What is interesting is that the climate change debate does seem to have very distinct lines across the
political spectrum. This of course is not 100% true but generally the more right wing tends to be on the
skeptical/denial end of the spectrum whilst advocates will tend to be on the left.
Without attempting to drift into the murky waters of politics, it does seem strange that the acceptance
of anthropogenic climate change and skepticism of the same, do seem to run directly parallel with
political views. The following observation is made in ‘meteorologists’ views about global warming’
“Most Americans know very little about the science of global warming (Leiserowitz et al. 2010)—but
rather by differences in political ideology and deeper underlying values (Kahan et al, 2011). Many
conservatives see the solutions proposed to mitigate global warming as being more harmful than global
warming itself due to their effect on the economy (McCright and Dunlap 2011). Liberals, on the other
hand, are more likely to accept the dominant scientific view, as they see the proposed responses to
global warming as strengthening activities they value—namely protection of the environment and
regulation of industrial harm” 21
This would concur that the lines would be drawn along compatible socio economical groups - liberals
tend to be environmentally conscious whereas conservatives tend to be economy and business
centered. We see the same picture repeated time and time again, with pollution issues, large
infrastructure building projects issues and deforestation issues. I think the issue has now moved so
much out of the arena of science that it is now squarely in the commerce vs ecology debate and the
natural lines of allegiances have been followed in accordance. In the US the ‘Watermelon label’ is often
used for environmentalist by those generally of the conservative, generally meaning that green
environmentalists are really communists.
This conundrum exists probably better than anywhere else in my own country of Australia. Australia is
immensely resource rich and the primary industry of coal and mineral mining has made Australia one of
the most stable developed economies, linked with its huge area and relatively small population means
that Australia ranks as one of the highest countries in the world of GHG emissions per capita23
. So in real
terms that means all Australians have a huge vested interest in all matters relating to carbon taxing and
environmental controls.
Also politicians are ‘fire fighters’ they can only realistically deal with the thing which is immediately in
front of them. Very few governments have and effective long term cross party strategies that cover core
social enterprises such as health and education, let alone one which will by definition adversely affect
the economy. “Climate change an issue which will be ongoing for the rest of the century, politics
addresses the issues for next week”
Manufacturing doubt
What is commonly known as the ‘product defense industry’ is very much the ‘black ops’ of corporate
strategies. For good reason, organizations and institutions would not want it publicly known that they
are engaged in the strategic ‘manufacturing of doubt’. It generally applies to the muddying tactics of
lobby groups, industries and sometimes individual representatives. The produce defense industry has its

Issue 1: 25/09/16
Page7
roots back going back to the tobacco industry’s attempts to blur the scientific consensus of the dangers
of smoking, both direct and passive, and now today is a multimillion dollar industry in its own right.
It is hard to dispute that the main protagonists employing these tactics are usually very large, very
powerful multinationals with a lot of vested interest and very deep pockets and or lobby groups PR
companies and sympathetic media who represent them.
The modus operandi of these institutions is not to dispute the science, but to muddy the waters of the
scientific research by throwing extraneous issues which will either delay the inevitable. This is very much
what we are seeing in the climate change debate 24
Almost exclusively the conclusion is “More research needed”
How is manufacturing doubt done?
Here’s a really good example, pulled directly from internet - the reason I use it is because at the time of
writing, if you type in “97% climate scientists” into google, this is the very first result.
“97% of Climate Scientists Agree' is 100% Wrong”25
Which appeared in Forbes.com the online version of the business magazine appearing on 6th
January 2015. By Alex Epstein
Who He?
Alex Epstein is an American author, energy theorist and industrial policy pundit. He is the founder and
President of the Center for Industrial Progress, a for-profit think tank located in Laguna Hills, California,
and a former fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute. Epstein is also the New York Times bestselling author of
The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, which champions the use of fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas.
Epstein is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute26
We will start with the title given poetic license aside calling any scientific paper 100% wrong is not
technically possible and clearly he is a fossil fuel use advocate. This is a clever use of semantics
suggesting that if the reported figure is 97% and it transpires that it is 96% (or even 98%) for that
matter, the whole study is inaccurate.
I will attempt to dissect his opinion in his piece as rationally as I can and of course his opinion is just as
valid as mine
““97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are
you to challenge them? The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual–and you don’t go by
polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.”
Incorrect - a meta-analysis is not a poll and the original data is from the abstracts of scientific papers,
not a poll of polls.
“What you’ll find is that people don’t want to define what 97% agree on–because there is nothing
remotely in the literature saying 97% agree we should ban most fossil fuel use.”
None of the studies suggests we should ban fossil fuels, the data was taking directly from abstracts
relating to specific studies, none were questioning the use of fossil fuel also that was never the intended
output from the study, this is a straw man argument.
“The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to
essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.”
A direct assumption that a 0.8 degree rise is insignificant, last statement is incorrect.

Issue 1: 25/09/16
Page8
Also, in the article, there are a list of four scientists who dispute Cooks’ interpretation of their paper
Undoubtable there are more, the methodology is by no means bullet proof and a skeptic can pick a
number of significant holes in it. However, in total there are over 4000 lead authors, I make that 0.1 %,
to call foul on these sort of numbers is stretching credibility. How many more would it take to
significantly shift this consensus?
Remember the point is not to attack the science directly but to make the whole process murky, throw in
spurious arguments, attach the scientists’ motivation such as who is funding them (ironic considering
that majority of the most militant opponents are funded by the fossil fuel industry) and re interpreting
results.
I started my research by just plugging in “97% of scientist hoax” into google and working through the
results one by one. As one would suspect it quickly became a who’s who of climate change deniers.
What was really interesting was following the trail back all the sources which remarkably can be traced
back to only a handful of institutions and individuals. The financial support of which support would
almost certainly be tracked to ‘the usual suspects’. It is also clear that the, also the AGW refuting
scientists tend to be the most vocal, they certainly seem to attract more media attention despite
protestations that the media is biased against them. This was happening on such a regular basis that it
became a little unnerving and the specter of ‘conspiracy’ alarm bells started ringing. However
‘conspiracy’ would suggest some sort or elaborate cover up and this is clearly not the case as it is
actually very easy to uncover, I would highly recommend having a go.
I have also discovered the ‘science of doubt’ in my own field of endeavor. Biochar is the manufacture of
charcoal (almost 100% black carbon (BC)) which can be used as an agricultural amendment. I have spent
the last four years in discussion with agronomists, pedologists, crop specialist, fertilizer specialists and
farmers’. Overwhelmingly (nearly 100%) of consensus of opinion is that the use of biochar as an
agricultural amendment is a good thing. However, as part of my biochar research, it would only be
correct if I followed the due process and to gauge what the general scientific consensus was.
Admittedly, there are numerous well recognized technical, logistical and economic issues particularly
with the ’upstream’ elements (the making of biochar and its conversion to an agricultural friendly
substance) and indeed even with the ‘downstream’ practical application27
. It is surprising however to
find that there are indeed numerous articles which warn of the dangers of biochar 28,29.
Some of the
arguments, from respected scientists and commentators are quite bizarre but interestingly most of
them cite the same articles which are based on the critique of one ‘flawed’ study giving the appearance
of consensus which is very misleading. The authors have completely ignored the multitude of studies
which have been positive about the use of biochar.
Is this a tactic used by both sides?
In the interests of balance it could be argued that both sides of the climate debate are guilty of this
strategy.
That is an examination of media outlets that are climate change advocates, that has taken a contrary
scientists view and instead of dissecting and argue the science directly has attacked the scientist and
their motivations.
This is not as straight forward as it may sound as what is apparent is the skeptic’s side does have some
real larger than life characters and the division between contradicting the science or the scientist
becomes very grey. So in the interests of being as fair as I possibly can I have chosen three examples
which I think represents the extremes of these terms of reference and have given the fairest assessment
I can.

Issue 1: 25/09/16
Page9
Example 1: Lord Monkton30
Lord Monkton, is not a scientist, he is a one man whirlwind of controversy (not just on climate change).
He adds nothing to the scientific debate on climate change. There is a fascinating and hilarious ‘Lord
Monkton’ rap sheet on science blog (https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/). It
would be unfair and cheap to liken Lord Monkton to all climate change skeptics in the same way asking
Christians to defend the Westboro Baptist church.
Example 2: Dr. Fred Singer31
Dr. Fred Singer, is a scientist and it would be fair to say is probably the highest profile climate change
opponent there is. He is also something of a paradox as he has in his many publications berated climate
deniers for being deniers and not skeptics and has also published many scientific articles directly taking
on the science of climate change. However, many, if not all of his publications, have been hotly refuted
by recognized climate scientists. He also has a history of vocal skepticism on a number of other issues
the dangers of passive smoking, acid rain and ozone depletion. Although it could not be said that he is
exclusively funded by the oil industry directly, the institutions he has represented and undertaken work
for receive donations for the oil industry and petroleum institutions. This all makes Dr. Fred Singer a
polarizing character where both his science and his character are routinely discredited by both scientists
and the media.
Example 3: Dr. Roy Spencer32
Dr. Roy Spencer, is a scientist he is a former NASA and is known for his satellite-based temperature
monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award. He
has been a vocal opponent of AGW and has published numerous works on the subject. His science has
been roundly criticized by his contemporaries for incorrect use of data. To be fair to Dr. Spencer and his
opponents, they mainly have duked it out in the science arena mano e mano. The same is generally true
in the media where Dr. Spencer’s work has been rebutted scientifically. On the issue of attacking the
person not the science it has been alluded to that Dr. Spencer is a serial offender on this.
Conclusion
Even with the most neutral hat I can find, evidence does really stack up on one side - the more research
that you do the more and more this becomes self-evident. The AGW opponents seem to be more willing
to employ questionable tactics, are much much more vocal and play fast and loose with facts. Whilst
AGW advocates are in some instances guilty of this, the overwhelming source of visceral publications
belong to the skeptics / deniers side.

Issue 1: 25/09/16
Page10
Hysterical doom mongers and the need for balance
Having got this far, in the interests of balance it would only be fair that I should apply the same metric to
the advocate side as to their opponents. I therefore turned my attention to possible the two largest
advocate groups Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth International. Keeping out as far as I can of the
political arena, I wanted to find out how well their science stacks up.
It would be fair to agree that both organizations have metamorphosised from what once could be
considered as a bunch of crusties33
from genesis in the early seventies, to what is now a well-established
international environmental movements, with well-paid directors but still funded in the majority from
individual subscriptions. They certainly have generated a more professional approach being invited to
participate in public policy debate rather than effigy-burning protests (although this still does occur).
There is no doubt that both the organizations and its core membership represent the more militant end
of the environmental spectrum, so by default everything published would be automatically biased in
that direction, but that shouldn’t matter as we are only sticking to the facts. The science is either correct
or it isn’t. I followed the methodology of searching through the organizations websites for any links to
scientific document or papers and followed the trail back to the attributed to source.
Greenpeace have their own lab based at Exeter University in England. And there total output does
appear to be almost exclusively chemical analysis of possible pollutants. Of course they have their
research vessels which appear to cover everything from sampling arctic waters to direct action against
Japanese whaling ships. I would imagine that the crew of their fleet of ships do undertake collection of
environmental data, although if they do, I have been unable to discover any direct scientific papers
relating to climate change. As far as I understand, Friends of the Earth do not conduct any scientific
studies of their own but act merely as an advocacy group, compiling their own reports based on existing
scientific studies.
The first thing you notice from both organizations is that reports directly generated by them are real
‘table thumpers’ – a lot of data, a lot of reviews and generally a lack of hysteria around the reporting of
scientific facts and statistics.
Example 1: “Changing the system not the climate, at COP17 in Durban and beyond”34
Foei.org> resources> publications
As emissions soar to unprecedented levels reference International energy agency, this report then
references the UN 5th
assessment 35
Example 2: Greenpeace
Example: ”What happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay in the Arctic”36
Greenpeace research labs > publications > What happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay in the Arctic>
referenced: CLIMATE CHANGE 2013 The Physical Science Basis37
There are also multiple sources who are a very critical of both organizations and specifically critical of
their funding, the salaries of chief executives and their involvement with government deals, shady
cooperate and political alliances. There is however very little that directly disputes their scientific
reports. It is also very interesting that further investigations into these critics many lead the trail back to
the ‘usual suspects’ in ‘manufacturing doubt’, some of which have very shady providence.

Issue 1: 25/09/16
Page11
OK let’s say we are all agreed AGW is happening what does the future hold.
“Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future” Neils Bohr38
Accepting that we now have a consensus amongst the majority of climate scientists that AGW is a fact,
the new fulcrum for debate to how much damage will there be and when will it happen? Currently this
does appear in particular the erroneous effect it can have on developed economies IF radical fossil fuel
emission reduction systems are introduced.
Does anyone know what exactly is going to happen? No, of course not the consensus of the UN & The
Royal Society in the UK and the National Academies of Science in the US are pretty dire and predicting a
global catastrophe on a Biblical scale unless immediate action is taken to cut our emissions. Contrarily,
there are some commentators and scientists on the skeptic’s side who suggest that increasing
temperatures and increasing levels of C02 will be beneficial39
(agronomics depend on C02 for the survival
and growth after all).
The UNIPCC much touted figure of limiting global warming to an increase of 2°C34
at which point it has
been calculated that the green effect will reach critical mass and therefore cannot be reversed. Of
course this figure has been the centre of heated debate between both scientists and policy makers. This
disagreement has been seized on by the skeptic’s community as an indication that not all scientists are
in agreement. This again is a straw man argument, is driving at 100 mph or 120 mph dangerous, the
answer is both, the correct course of action would be to slow down.
The advocates of little or no action suggest the weaning of fossil fuels is impractical and is certainly not
going to happen overnight. Of course this is true - the burning of fossil fuels is an integral part of the life
of nearly everybody on the planet and it cannot be switched off over night. Is this a good reason for no
action?
One thing for sure it will it the poorest nations hardest and this will always be the way. Many agricultural
based economies are increasingly marginal which I have witnessed this for myself in rice farms
throughout Thailand, however, other contributory factors other than climate change are causal. My
biggest concern is that we are currently seeing huge migration issues in Europe, many are already
declaring it a humanitarian crises due to a number of culminating factors from war, persecution to
economic pressures. If you start adding potential famine into the mix where do you go from there?
Conclusions
• The earth is warming, there appears to be no one in disagreement with this - even the most
hardened skeptics agree. There are arguments which propose that both temperatures and C02
levels were higher in the past: this is true due to the world being much warmer1000 years ago
(Medieval warm period) and the world underwent a “little ice age” about 500 years ago.
However the rate of change in the latter half of the 20th
century is unprecedented, the change is
much quicker and there are no related geological or cosmological effects.
• The overwhelming consensus is that anthropogenic GHG is a significant contributor to this rapid
change. There is a small number of climate scientists who disagree and some of these are
genuine, their research indicating that anthropogenic global warming is either a small
percentage of the overall picture, or not happening at all. There is also a small number, who are
generally the most vocal who are motivated by nonscientific reasons. It is true that the
opponents are a very much the minority.

Issue 1: 25/09/16
Page12
• There is enormous disagreement and always will be on the testing methodology of just about all
of the science of the meta-analysis but that’s what scientists do, but generally they are all in
agreement. Again the percentages are conclusive by arguing finer points of data – in doing this
we are only re arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
• There is disagreement amongst the global warming advocates scientists on how much GHG is
natural and how much is manmade and more importantly what the effect will be. Just how
serious is it and how quickly will it happen.
• It would be fair to say that those on the most militant end of the climate change debate are
accused of being alarmist calling for immediate global action at the other end of the spectrum
there is skeptical argument that it is impossible to predict the future trend to any great degree.
Can we afford to get this wrong?
• Product defense (Manufacturing doubt) is a REAL issue, almost exclusively generated on the
skeptic’s side.
• As we all know, immediate and dramatic action will affect all of us the lifestyles which we have
become accustomed to in the developed world will have to be severely rethought, the specter
of carbon taxing which nobody wants. The first time in our history we have to ratchet back our
lifestyle.
• Nobody wants more taxes. Carbon taxing systems are inherently unfair as those who ‘do the
right thing’ will be punished whereas the worst offenders will get off Scot-free.

Issue 1: 25/09/16
Page13
Summary
We are all beneficiaries of modern technology, affording us as lifestyle and a life expectancy that
even a century ago would have seemed unimaginable. And it’s not just the petrochemical industries
its other industries such as chemical companies who have developed synthetic fertilizers and
pesticides that have pushed the once common scourge famine to the history books. Unless you live
completely off grid you will be using up fossil fuels and products and services of GHG emitting
industries in every day of your life.
My own personal philosophy is that the human race is running at an unsustainable rate - if you do
not believe that, then really do need help. It is forecast that the world’s population will reach 11
billion40
by the end of this century, that’s another 3.5 billion mouths to feed, a 33% increase from
where we are now. Together with peak oil, fossil fuels do not renew and pollution, increased
mobility and at some point in the future, this has to be turned round. This point in time could be
argued in many different ways, some may even argue that the point of no return has already been
reached, you don’t need climate change as reason, although it would be a good argument that it
would be a good time to start. What is true is that the closer we get to this point the less options we
have. And voluntary changes will be taken out of our hands.

Issue 1: 25/09/16
Page14
References:
1. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature: cook et
al 2013
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
2. @barackobama
https://twitter.com/barackobama/status/335089477296988160
3. Australia’s One Nations senator Malcolm Roberts on ABC’s Weekly political debate panel show
with Prof. Brian cox
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2016/aug/16/i-brought-the-graph-brian-
cox-and-malcolm-roberts-debate-climate-change-on-qa-video
4. https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus
Scopus is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature: scientific
journals, books and conference proceedings. Many thanks to Dr. Wolfram Spreer Lecturer and
assistant dean for research and international affairs Chiang Mai University, Faculty of agriculture
Chiang Mai, Thailand. For allowing me access to Scopus database
5. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/skeptic
6. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/denier?s=t
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Haytham
9. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
10. http://www-outreach.phy.cam.ac.uk/camphy/pulsars/pulsars4_1.htm
11. Scientist cries hoax as cult fails to provide clone proof – the guardian Tuesday 7 January 2003
08.53 GMT.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2003/jan/07/genetics.internationaleducationnews
12. Science under attack – BBC documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3JEaigwAbg
13. The Concentration of Isotopic Abundances of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere’ (CD Keeling,
1960)
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/publications/keeling_tellus_1960.pdf
14. UN IPCC History
https://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml
15. https://www.researchgate.net/post/ISI_and_Scopus_index2
16. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
17. The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change - Naomi Oreskes 2004
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686
18. The ‘Scientific Consensus on Climate Change’: Doran and Zimmerman Revisited
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/commissioned-work/the-'scientigic-consensus-
on-climate-change'.pdf
19. Expert credibility in climate change: Andregg 2010
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf
20. Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming: Verheggen 2014
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501998e
21. Meteorologists’ views about global warming: Stenhouse 2014
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
22. The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists: Carlton 2015

Issue 1: 25/09/16
Page15
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025/meta
23. List of countries by GreenHouse gas emissions by capita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita
24. Private Empire: Exxon Mobil and American power: Steve Coll
https://www.amazon.com/Private-Empire-ExxonMobil-American-
Power/dp/0143123548#reader_0143123548
25. '97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong: Alex Epstein
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-
wrong/#462e23327187
26. Alex Epstein (American writer)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Epstein_(American_writer)
27. One ton per rai concept note_ issue 1: Gordon Hirst
https://www.linkedin.com/in/gordon-hirst-16173946?trk=hp-identity-name (To be updated)
28. Biochar and its effects on plant productivity and nutrient cycling: a meta-analysis LORI A. B
IEDERMAN and W. STANLEY HARPOLE
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.12037/abstract
29. Beware the biochar initiative: Dr. Mae Wan Ho
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/bewareTheBiocharInitiative.php
30. http://www.lordmoncktonfoundation.com/
31. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer
32. http://www.drroyspencer.com/
33. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusties
34. Changing the system not the climate at COP17 Durban and beyond
http://www.foei.org/resources/publications/publications-by-subject/climate-justice-energy-
publications/changing-the-system-not-the-climate-at-cop17-in-durban-and-beyond
35. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 200719.4.2.2 Scenario analysis and analysis of
stabilisation targets
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch19s19-4-2-2.html
36. What happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay in the arctic : Greenpeace
http://www.greenpeace.org/espana/Global/espana/2016/report/artico/ArticoEN-LR.pdf
37. CLIMATE CHANGE 2013 The Physical Science Basis
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
38. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/niels_bohr.html
39. Urban CO2 Dome (Phoenix, Arizona, USA) – Summary: Isda 2003
http://www.co2science.org/subject/u/summaries/phxurbanco2dome.php
40. World population prospects UN revision 2015
https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/publications/files/key_findings_wpp_2015.pdf

97% of climate scientists agree fact or fiction_issue 1_160925

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (18)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie 97% of climate scientists agree fact or fiction_issue 1_160925

Ähnlich wie 97% of climate scientists agree fact or fiction_issue 1_160925 (20)

Mehr von Gordon Hirst

Mehr von Gordon Hirst (7)

97% of climate scientists agree fact or fiction_issue 1_160925