Tuesday, 1 May 2012

97% of people quoting this figure are wrong.

Image: Wikipedia

84% of statistics are made up.

At least that's what my old mate tells me. So, how about the oft quoted 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

At James Delinpole's recent Sydney address, he was asked about this statistic.

Where did this figure come from?

 It came from a flawed "scientific" study.

The study was by Doran and Zimmerman 2009. It was unscientific in the questions and was unscientific in the way the results were obtained.


 The Questions.

Doran, P. T., and M. Kendall Zimmerman (2009), Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Eos Trans. AGU, 90(3)

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
The first question is designed to get a "YES - risen" from any scientist. It does not ask about runaway warming.

The second question broken down:

Do you think human activity is a contributing factor in changing temperatures.

My house - Google Earth
My house is on timbered acreage and is about 6 kilometres, as the crow flies, from a large regional shopping centre.  The temperature in the shopping centre car park is always a few degrees warmer than in my kitchen. This is called the Urban Heat Island effect - an example of human activity causing warming.

From Steve Goddard's Real Science

I ( Steven Goddard)  just did an experiment in Fort Collins, Colorado at 1:30am.  It is a full moon and the air is dead calm. I took a bike ride with a thermometer, which I have permanently affixed to the bike. It turns out that temperatures are 7F cooler in the open space region below, less than 0.2 miles away from the parking lot of a shopping center.
Recently a paper has been published saying covering countryside with clamorous wind farms causes warming. Another example of human activity causing warming.

 Significant? How do you scientifically measure significant?

The Results.

As Lawrence Solomon wrote in the Financial Post:

This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2008 master’s thesis by student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at the University of Illinois, under the guidance of Peter Doran, an associate professor of Earth and environmental sciences. The two researchers obtained their results by conducting a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers — in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change.  The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

See also The Hockey Shtick -  The 97% "Consensus" is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists

               Anthony Cox:  - The Consensus Myth: 97% of Nothing

Some statistics quoted from Scientific American by Ian Plimer in his book How to get expelled from school (p41):
  • 81% thought the IPCC is corrupt;
  • 77% do not want to pay to stop catastrophic climate change;
  • 75% climate change caused by solar variations or natural causes;
  • 65% thought we are powerless to stop climate change;
  • 21% thought that climate change was due to human emissions.   

SEE ALSO:   97% is not what you think.
There were nine questions in all but the two primary questions in the survey were these. Question number one: When compared to pre-1800 levels, do you think mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? Of the 3,146 respondents 90% said risen. Herein lies one of the flaws in the survey. This is a loaded question. During the past 2,000 years the earth has had well documented swings in average temperature. At the beginning of the Roman Empire the earth was as warm or warmer than today. This warm spell is known as the “Roman Warmer Period” and extended from about 250 BC to 450 AD. Rome fell during an era when the temperature was turning colder, known as “The Dark Ages Cold Period” from about 450 AD to 950 AD. This cold spell finally gave way to a more agreeable temperature rebound known as the “Medieval Warm Period” from about 950 AD to1400 AD
SEE ALSO:     97% of Climate Scientists Equals Only 75 Anonymous Persons 
The small number of climate scientists actually supporting the Al Gore/IPCC claims of catastrophic global warming and the actual AGW "predictions" has always been a major embarrassment. As a result, the left/liberal/greens have been forced to fabricate bogus support that can't stand up to any form of scrutiny.
First, it was the claim that 2,500 IPCC-related scientists agreed with the 2007 IPCC report. Soon afer it was discovered that the actual number of scientists who actually agreed with the report contents was only 25.
Next, when the 2,500 shrunk to 25, a couple of University of Illinois researchers conjured up a 2-minute online, anonymous survey that they hoped would deliver some big numbers to crow about. They solicited 10,257 earth scientists and only 77 chose to answer the online survey (yes, only 77). 75 of those "climate scientists" agreed with the survey's two questions (yes, only 2 questions).
Voila, the infamous and widely publicized "97%" of climate scientists (75 divided by 77) who thought man was the cause of global warming turned out to be a numeric joke.

H/t  - Last two links - Climate Depot

See also:  

97% of scientists tell us that the poles are melting down at unprecedented rates and will drown us all.




  1. Britain National Risk Register of Civil Emergencies -2012 edition
    Volcanic hazards Risk
    3.25 ...There are a range of volcanoes across Europe (such as SANTORINI in the Aegean Sea) which could have consequences for the UK...
    3.27 ...Significant eruptions of this type can emit gases and particles into the stratosphere, above weather systems, where they may also have subsequent CLIMATIC effects. [=VOLCANIC WINTER]

    Solar flares tigger earthquakes
    Jain, R., Physical Research Laboratory.
    Each of the 682 >4.0 earthquakes under study was preceded by a solar flare of GOES importance B to X class by 10-100 hrs.

    Explosive volcanic eruptions triggered by cosmic rays
    Toshikazu Ebisuzaki, Hiroko Miyahara, Ryuho Kataoka, Tatsuhiko Sato, Yasuhiro Ishimine

    Nature 482, 77–80 (02 February 2012)
    "If you had a big [volcanic] eruption of this sort [globally devastating], let's say in the middle of Europe today, the effects would be enormous and a few months might not be enough to get your act together." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7383/full/nature10706.html. SO:

    Worldwide Lightning-rod Nets URGENTLY to save humankind from cannibalic collapse
    by galactically driven, devastating quakes/volcanic winters,
    as happened to Mayas, Aztecs, Incas

    William Ryan, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University
    Five years volcanic winter of disastrous harvests: “The massive crop failures caused by climatic change had a domino effect on the Mediterranean economy that traveled in a wave of political uprisings from Anatolia to Mesopotamia to Egypt and then back to the Aegean”...
    "When Tambora exploded, agriculture was severely damaged even on the opposite side of the world. At a VEI of 7, Thera’s eruption would have had a similar effect on the Bronze Age climate,” said Dr. Ryan.

  2. JD also mentioned some particjuliarly large German banks and insurance companies in his presentation.
    More here:


All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!