When Experts Obfuscate!ย  How Alarmist Scientists like D. Swain, J. Abatzoglou, A. Williams Falsely Attribute Wildfires to Climate Change.

In their Goss et al (2020) paper Climate Change Is Increasing the Likelihood of Extreme Autumn Wildfire Conditions Across California, those alarmist scientists clearly stated their intention was to make climate change the culprit by presenting an investigation that โ€œonly considers changes in climatic contributions to wildfire risk, irrespective of changes in fire ignitions, vegetation, land use or management strategies.โ€

From Watts Up With That?

By Jim Steele

In their Goss et al (2020) paper Climate Change Is Increasing the Likelihood of Extreme Autumn Wildfire Conditions Across California, those alarmist scientists clearly stated their intention was to make climate change the culprit by presenting an investigation that โ€œonly considers changes in climatic contributions to wildfire risk, irrespective of changes in fire ignitions, vegetation, land use or management strategies.โ€ However, all those other factors can completely account for wildfire trends unrelated to climate change. For example, while much research has shown human ignitions have tripled the length of fire season, alarmist scientists dishonestly push a narrative that it is climate warming trends that have extended fire season. Papers not accounting for all confounding factors affecting a narrative, should never pass peer review. It is advocacy, not science! So, lets learn some science.

History shows that despite cooler and moister conditions pre-1800, an estimated ~4.5 million acres burned annually in California during the Little Ice Age (Stephens 2007). This far exceeds a 1979โ€“1988 average of ~337,000 burnt acres/year, which then recently increased to a 21st century average of ~708,000 acres/year. However, Californiaโ€™s August 2020 fires did reach a similar burnt area of 4.4 million acres, when a rare swarm of thousands of dry lightning strikes ignited several small fires. Understanding the importance of vegetation analyses, reveals the great majority of lightning fires begin by igniting โ€œfine fuelsโ€ like dead grasses, which then produce the fastest moving fires and burn the greatest area. Despite alarmistsโ€™ claims the recent increased  burnt area is an indicator of climate change, vegetation changes are far more important.  Burnt area is mostly determined by the presence and continuity of โ€œfine fuelsโ€ and strong winds. But there were not any unusually strong winds when those 2020 fires began. But there has been an increase in invasive annual grasses creating greater fuel abunadance and continuity. For example, fine fuels (invasive annual grasses) have increased more than eightfold from 1990 to 2020 in the Great Basin which includes most of Nevada, half of Utah, and 10-20% of California, enabling a greater burnt area.

Understand The Critical Role of Fine Fuels

โ€œFine Fuelsโ€ are defined as dead vegetation less than ยผ inch in diameter. This includes cured grasses, weeds, pine needles, fallen leaves, and the small twigs of shrubs. They are also classified by fire experts as 1-hour fuels because they gain and lose moisture extremely quickly, gaining or losing 63% of their moisture in just 1 hour. Fine fuels can become highly flammable in just 60 minutes after a light rain. Climate change is totally irrelevant for fine fuel dryness and flammability.

Accordingly, 90+% of all wildfire ignitions happen in easily ignited fine fuels. Depending on the winds a grass fire, as seen in graphic A, will then rapidly spread the fire by advancing about 1 foot/second. The fire will keep advancing as long as flammable fuels are present near the flame front. However, a road may prevent the extent of grass fires, which partially explains why roadless areas experience the worst fires. Furthermore, statistics suggesting an increase in forest wildfires, obscure the fact that typically ~90โ€“97% of the forest floor area in Sierra Nevada forests/woodlands is covered by 1-hour and 10-hour fine fuels. A grass fireโ€™s flame front does not remain in one position for more than 5 to 15 seconds, so it moves rapidly through the forest floor without killing trees which require much more heat for a much longer time (graphic B).

However, if the fires are carried into the forests where poor land management has allowed shrubs and young trees and fine fuels to increase, the undergrowth provides ground fuels and enough fuels to release ample heat that can ignite ladder fuels and torch trees to create crown fires that emit embers that then spread the fire rapidly through the air. (graphic C & D)

Understand The Critical Role of Heat Source

Fine fuels require a heat flux (minimum rate of energy input) of 8,000โ€“16,000 W/mยฒ for several seconds. Higher fluxes ignite fine fuels more quickly. The flame front of an advancing grass fire releases 20,000โ€“50,000 W/mยฒ, and that amount of heat easily dries and ignites 1-hour and 10-hour fuels, but not enough heat to burn live trees or dead logs with diameters greater than 3 inches. Multiple embers released by torched trees often collect on roofs with average heat fluxes of 15,000โ€“80,000 W/mยฒ. Those heat sources are enough to ignite your house.

For heat flux comparisons, the sun provides at most about 1,000 W/mยฒ of energy onto the earthโ€™s surface on a clear day at noon. CO2โ€™s current concentration adds less than 2.5 W/mยฒ of energy since the Little Ice Age. However, a standard match provides about 25,000 W/mยฒ, but only for about 15 seconds. So, an arsonโ€™s match easily ignites any fine fuels and starts a wildfire.  Depending on the electric current strength and other factors, a downed power line can produce 10,000 to 600,000 W/mยฒ for several seconds to minutes. Thus, many major fires have been ignited when sparking electrical lines ignited the surrounding fine fuels. Although lightning can deliver up to a billion W/mยฒ, it only does so for less than a second. Such a short heat pulse rarely ignites a tree so primarily limits lightningโ€™s wildfire ignitions to fine fuels.

Understand The Critical Role of Dryness

Flammability is high for most woody fuels when moisture content falls below 30%. Firewood is generally considered ready to burn efficiently below ~20โ€“25% moisture content. Under 60% relative humidity, fine fuels commonly reach 10โ€“20% flammable moisture content at air temperatures ranging from 30โ€“100ยฐF (โ€“1 to 38ยฐC). In contrast to claims by alarmist scientists, 1.5ยฐC of global warming adds meaningless drying relative to the range of natural temperature fluctuations.

For example, during the rainless summer in Californiaโ€™s Mediterranean climate, relative humidity naturally falls and dries fine fuelโ€™s moisture content to below 10% every day. Consider in Californiaโ€™s inland valleys and foothills during August, high relative humidity of 60% to 75% typically happens in the morning with temperatures in the 50s to mid-60sยฐF (10โ€“19ยฐC). Despite those cool temperatures, fine fuel moisture content reaches a very flammable 12% to 15%. As temperatures warm in the afternoon, commonly to the 80s and 90sยฐF (27โ€“37ยฐC), relative humidity falls to 30%-40%, drying fine fuels to a highly flammable 6-8% moisture content. More amazing, during the colder fall and winter temperatures when Santa Ana and Diablo wind events occur, the dry air descending from the deserts often lowers relative humidity to just 2%. Below ~10% moisture content, ignition probability from a single spark or discarded burning cigarette becomes extremely high. This evidence partially explains why despite 1.5ยฐC cooler average temperatures during the Little Ice Age, 4.5 million acres had still burned annually in California.

To prevent rotting from fungi, exterior wood and building materials for houses range from 9% to 14% moisture content causing your house to burn more efficiently than dry firewood. Thus, we often observe neighborhoods burnt to the ground in a wildfire despite being surrounded by living trees with unaffected leaves and needles (graphic E in Paradise Camp fire and graphic F in the Dixie fire).

How to Protect Your Home from Wildfire

While so-called climate experts obfuscate wildfire science and claim you can reduce the threat of wildfire by reducing fossil fuel use, NOTHING could be further from the truth. Sadly, too many people have been lulled into wrongly thinking they are protecting their homes by buying electric vehicles or not eating meat. These obfuscating climate alarmists encourage people to stop critical thinking about how to honestly deal with wildfire threats, while useful idiots in social media advocate meaningless actions like eating bugs instead of beef.

To protect your home, simply prevent fine fuels and embers from carrying the fire into your flammable home. Create a defensible perimeter at least 5 meters away from your home by removing any fine fuels and any flammable vegetation. Donโ€™t store flammable materials next to your home. Remove any tree branches overhanging your home and remove all low hanging branches that would provide der fuels that produce canopy fires and wind carried embers. Install fire resistant roofing and screens over all vents where embers could enter. If you understand the science of how wildfires spread, these precautions are just common sense. Alarmist climate experts be damned. Once you install these precautions, you can then guiltlessly enjoy a hamburger and fossil fuel powered heating and cooling systems.

The Experts who got everything wrong about Antarctica want you to sign UN documents to help penguins (and bankers)

The ABC ran another Agony-Antarctica column in the news โ€” talking about mysteriousย โ€œrapid, interacting and sometimes self-perpetuating changesโ€ in ominous but vague terms. Blob-Scientists hinted at ambiguous, unnamed, โ€œchangesโ€ which might wipe out the cute emperor penguins, or at least non-specifically โ€œheighten the riskโ€ of their extinction, sometime, maybe.

Aerial view of a massive ice shelf with rugged, textured ice formations meeting dark water in Antarctica.

From JoNova

By Jo Nova

A snowy Antarctic landscape featuring a large icebergs floating in the calm, reflective waters with distant mountains in the background.

Something big is going on around Antarctica, but climate experts have no idea whatโ€™s causing it

The ABC ran another Agony-Antarctica column in the news โ€” talking about mysterious โ€œrapid, interacting and sometimes self-perpetuating changesโ€ in ominous but vague terms. Blob-Scientists hinted at ambiguous, unnamed, โ€œchangesโ€ which might wipe out the cute emperor penguins, or at least non-specifically โ€œheighten the riskโ€ of their extinction, sometime, maybe.

โ€œScientists say there is emerging evidence of abrupt and potentially unstoppable changes in the Antarctic environment.

The changes are heightening the risk of significant sea level rise and the extinction of species, including emperor penguins.โ€ โ€” ABC โ€œNewsโ€

Very unscientifically, none of the scientists pointed out that in 45 years of satellite data the entire south polar region below 60ยฐ has not even warmed. Isnโ€™t that material?  One point six trillion tons of man-made CO2 hasnโ€™t warmed the continent in the last 45 years. Doesnโ€™t that matter?

Tell the world, Antarctica is the most stable climate on the surface of Earth:

Nothing says global warming like a trend of 0.03ยฐC per decade.

Graph displaying Southern Polar temperature anomalies from 1978 to 2025, featuring fluctuating temperature values with a horizontal red line indicating average temperature.

For decades they told us that Antarctica would warm twice as fast as most of the world. What happened to that? Nothing.

To put it bluntly, it wasย warmer in Antarctica a thousand years ago, and two thousand years agoย and the penguins survived just fine. In fact, Theย Penguin Optimumย (they really call it that) was three or four thousand years ago when it was even warmer still. (Hall et al 2023).ย  It was the horrible cold of theย Little Ice Age that wiped out thousands of penguins. Lord forbids, that animals that manage to survive in the coldest place on Earth would want it to be even colder.

But none of these awkward points help feed The Blob, so the ABC doesnโ€™t ask, and the scientists donโ€™t say anything. Instead, they talk about sea ice and currents,ย because itโ€™s the only thing they have at the moment.ย 

Playing the โ€œSea Iceโ€ and โ€œOcean Currentsโ€ Tarot Card

Like fortune tellers turning over a tarot card, it doesnโ€™t matter what card they flip โ€” you need to pay them money.

Matthew England (UNSW) and Nerilie Abram (Australian Antarctic Division) seem to be more than happy to take a scientific mystery and turn it into a political tax campaign. They craft a story of spooky changes going on with Antarctic Sea ice. The changes are real, but they donโ€™t have the honesty to admit that they have no idea why the sea ice grew and then dropped off the way it has.ย Their models didnโ€™t predict it,ย and it doesnโ€™t seem to have anything to do with CO2. In 2013 Turner et al said the increase in Antarctic Seaย was one of the great unsolved puzzles of climate science.ย Then after it vanished Silvano et al said the decline was โ€œcompletely unexpected.โ€ In other words, they have no clue. The โ€œsea iceโ€ card flipped!

See the graph below: for thirty years Antarctic Sea ice grew far and wide and set new records (the red line). Then in 2015, something changed and it dramatically shrank. CO2 has been rising the whole time, so itโ€™s not the cause of the sharp shift in 2015.

Possibly, a big natural change in an ocean current caused the regime change, just like it has for millions of years.

Graph showing sea-ice extent in million square kilometers from 1979 to 2025 for the Southern and Northern Hemispheres, highlighting the trends in ice coverage over the years.

Scientists are pretending to be fortune tellers in order to get our money

Copied below the โ€œscientistsโ€ use their own ignorance to argue Australians should spend hundreds of millions to install solar panels and windmills in order to change ocean currents and save some penguins.

Iconic Antarctic species at risk amid โ€˜regime shiftโ€™, scientists say, with โ€˜rapid and self-perpetuating changesโ€™

[ABC] โ€œA regime shift has reduced Antarctic sea-ice extent far below its natural variability of past centuries, and in some respects is more abrupt, non-linear and potentially irreversible than Arctic sea-ice loss,โ€ it says. Since 2014, the report says the median contraction of the Antarctic sea-ice edge has been around 120 kilometres.

โ€˜Five-sigmaโ€™ event in Antarctica

Antarctic sea ice levels took a nose dive at a time of year when sea ice usually forms reliably โ€” and that has experts worried.

The most significant decline was in the winter of 2023, which was so far below previous satellite records and historical modelling that scientists described it as โ€œgobsmackingโ€.

Professor Abram said the reportโ€™s findings highlight the need to reduce carbon emissions. โ€œThe changes that weโ€™re seeing in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean really reinforce the importance of these international agreements that we have for how weโ€™re going to tackle climate change,โ€ she said.

Buy carbon-credits or the penguin gets it?

As far as we can tell, penguins are pretty happy about getting rid of the sea ice. When people tracked Adelie penguins they found out that when more sea ice melts, the penguins ate more, swam further and have more baby penguins. Happy days.

The UAH satellite trend for Antarctica for the last 45 years was just 0.03ยฐC warming per decade. Given that Emperor Penguins survive in anything from -60ยฐC up to 20ยฐC the penguins today would hardly care less about a pitiful extra tenth of one degree spread over nearly 50 years.

A group of emperor penguins standing and resting on the snow in Antarctica.

REFERENCES

Alison F. Banwell et al, Quantifying Antarcticโ€Wide Iceโ€Shelf Surface Melt Volume Using Microwave and Firn Model Data: 1980 to 2021, Geophysical Research Letters (2023). DOI: 10.1029/2023GL102744

Hall et al (2023) Widespread southern elephant seal occupation of the Victoria land coast implies a warmer-than-present Ross Sea in the mid-to-late Holocene, Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 303, 1 March 2023, 107991

Mads Dรธmgaard et al, Early aerial expedition photos reveal 85 years of glacier growth and stability in East Antarctica, Nature Communications (2024). DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-48886-x

Alessandro Silvano, Aditya Narayanan, Rafael Catany, Estrella Olmedo, Veronica Gonzalez; Gambau, Antonio Turiel, Roberto Sabia, Matthew R. Mazloff, Theo Spira, F. Alexander Haumann, Alberto C. Naveira Garabato. (2025)  Rising surface salinity and declining sea ice: A new Southern Ocean state revealed by satellites. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2025; 122 (27) DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2500440122

Photo: Ice by AlKalenski and Penguins by Denis Luyten 

Extraordinary, Unexpected, Unnoticeable โ€“ Climate Scientists Panic about 1.5C Breach

Some places are warmer than usual, some places are colder than usual. Did anyone else notice the end of the world?

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Some places are warmer than usual, some places are colder than usual. Did anyone else notice the end of the world?

The โ€˜extraordinaryโ€™ record-breaking data that has climate experts baffled

New heat records have been set every day since March last year. Scientists are confused and concerned about the worrying data.

Published 15 June 2024 6:38am
Updated 15 June 2024 8:30am
By Charis Chang

Every day since March last year, daily heat records are reaching new heights and multiple climate records have been broken. 

The โ€œextraordinaryโ€ and unexpected phenomenon has concerned the worldโ€™s climate scientists, who fear the severe impacts of global warming are emerging sooner than expected and may leave us in โ€œuncharted territoryโ€. 

โ€ฆ

The University of Maineโ€™s Climate Reanalyzer platform shows new daily records have been set for sea surface temperatures since around mid-March last year.

โ€ฆ

In February, it was revealed the Earth had recorded land surface temperatures above the 1.5C Paris Agreement target for the first time. 

โ€ฆ

โ€œWhat we are seeing is extraordinary, and concerning,โ€ Australian National University professor Mark Howden told SBS News.

โ€œBreaking records continuously over a 12-month or more period is extraordinary.โ€

Howden said the higher than normal ocean temperatures also boosted temperatures over land.

โ€œWe are consequently seeing extraordinary temperatures over the land as well, impacting on human health and wellbeing, agricultural production, water availability, economic productivity and the environment to name just a few of the affected domains,โ€ he said.

โ€ฆRead more:ย 

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/daily-heat-records-keep-getting-broken-its-leaving-experts-baffled/x7h38zakp

Meanwhile back in the real world, while much of the USA swelters in a heatwave, other places are experiencing cold weather.

Brrr-itish summer: why is it so cold and when will it get warmer?

Below-average temperatures and rain may feel more miserable because heatwaves are now seen as the norm

Ian Sample 
Science editor Fri 14 Jun 2024 21.47 AESTLast modified on Sat 15 Jun 2024 04.05 AEST

From the water coolers to the WhatsApp groups, the question remains the same: what has happened to the British weather, and is there any sign of summer hiding in the forecastersโ€™ models?

Halfway through an unseasonably cold June, a shift is already under way. But that doesnโ€™t mean it is time to break out the barbie. Having endured chill winds blowing down from the north, the shift in weather will bring warmer, if not quite warm, temperatures, and with it, sporadic downpours and even thunderstorms.

โ€œIt feels like quite a contrast from last year when we were all experiencing a heatwave with about 30C temperatures in south-east England,โ€ says Dr Matt Patterson, a climate physicist at the University of Reading. โ€œItโ€™s not like that this year.โ€

โ€ฆRead more: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jun/14/brrr-itish-summer-why-is-it-so-cold-when-will-it-get-warmer

While Moscow is currently experiencing warm weather, a few months ago it was a different story;

Temperatures in Siberia dip to minus 56 Celsius as record snow blankets Moscow

By Reuters
December 5, 202312:58 AM GMT+10

MOSCOW, Dec 4 (Reuters) โ€“ Temperatures in parts of Siberia plummeted to minus 56 degrees Celsius (minus 69 degrees Fahrenheit) on Monday while blizzards blanketed Moscow in record snowfall and disrupted flights as winter weather swept across Russia.

In the Sakha Republic, located in the northeastern part of Siberia and home to Yakutsk, one of the worldโ€™s coldest cities, temperatures fell below minus 50 C, according to the regionโ€™s weather stations.

โ€ฆ

Almost all of Sakha is located in the permafrost zone. In the regionโ€™s capital, Yakutsk, which lies some 5,000 km (3,100 miles) east of Moscow, the temperature was around minus 44 C to minus 47 C.

โ€ฆRead more:ย 

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/temperatures-siberia-dip-minus-50-celsius-record-snow-blankets-moscow-2023-12-04/

China is experiencing a heatwave, like the USA;

Chinaโ€™s record heat and heavy rain raise food security concerns

By Edward Szekeres, Fred Hu and Robert Shackelford, CNN
Published 7:23 AM EDT, Fri June 14, 2024

Hong KongCNN โ€” 

China is grappling with extreme weather as severe drought and record temperatures scorch the north while heavy rains inundate the south, raising concerns about food security in the worldโ€™s second-largest economy.

Areas of the country that produce a lot of rice and wheat have been badly affected, disrupting spring and summer planting seasons.

The Ministry of Agriculture said Thursday that drought and heat have had an adverse impact on the planting season in some northern and central provinces, and it warned that temperatures were expected to surpass 35 Celsius (95 Fahrenheit) in the coming days.

โ€ฆRead more:ย 

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/14/business/china-record-heat-rain-food-security-intl-hnk/index.html

Large parts of Australia are unusually cold;

Prolonged cold snap across eastern Australia to last at least a week

By ABC meteorologist Tom Saunders

Posted Fri 14 Jun 2024 at 5:14amFriday 14 Jun 2024 at 5:14am, updated Fri 14 Jun 2024 at 5:01pm

After Melbourne recorded it coldest day in five years yesterday, parts of south-east Australia today have shivered to their coldest maximum in up to 27 years.

The chilly weather is part of a prolonged cold outbreak which will last another week.

Some of the lowest maximums today include:

  • Longerenong 7.9C โ€” coldest day in 27 years
  • Horsham 8.1C โ€“ coldest day in 8 years
  • Hopetoun 8.3C โ€“ coldest day in 4 years
  • Charlton 8.3C โ€” coldest day in 4 years
  • Nhill 8.3C โ€“ coldest day in 22 years
  • Keith 8.9C โ€“ coldest day in 18 years
  • Swan Hill 9.1C โ€” coldest day in 4 years

The most extreme anomalies are being experienced under a band of rain from south-east South Australia, through western and central Victoria to southern New South Wales, where maximums dropped as much as seven below average for June.

โ€ฆRead more:ย 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-14/nsw-cold-snap-south-east-australia-melbourne/103975574

South America has experienced cold weather recently;

An unusual autumn freeze grips parts of South America, giving Chile its coldest May in 74 years

Updated 11:55 AM AEST, May 18, 2024Share

SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) โ€” Chileans are bundling up for their coldest autumn in more than 70 years mere days after sunning in T-shirts โ€” a dramatic change of wardrobe brought on this week by a sudden cold front gripping portions of South America unaccustomed to bitter wind chills this time of year. 

Temperatures broke records along the coast of Chile and in Santiago, the capital, dipping near freezing and making this month the coldest May that the country has seen since 1950, the Chilean meteorological agency reported. 

An unusual succession of polar air masses has moved over southern swaths of the continent, meteorological experts say, pushing the mercury below zero Celsius (32 Fahrenheit) in some places. Itโ€™s the latest example of extreme weather in the region โ€” a heat wave now baking Mexico, for instance โ€” which scientists link to climate change.

โ€ฆRead more:ย 

https://apnews.com/article/chile-argentina-paraguay-cold-weather-e0aee88ea6475f0665283aa08cf0a313

Just as well weโ€™ve got climate scientists to tell us weโ€™re experiencing a climate emergency. Otherwise all of this would look just like weather.

Update (EW): h/t Nick โ€“ forgot to add the reference to 1.5C to the first quoted article.

The In-depth Story Behind the 97% of Scientists Climate Myth

This four year old presentation by Dr. John Robson investigates the unsound origins and fundamental inaccuracy, even dishonesty, of the claim that 97% of scientists, or โ€œthe worldโ€™s scientistsโ€, or something agree that climate change is man-made, urgent and dangerous.

From Watts Up With That?

CDN

This four year old presentation by Dr. John Robson investigates the unsound origins and fundamental inaccuracy, even dishonesty, of the claim that 97% of scientists, or โ€œthe worldโ€™s scientistsโ€, or something agree that climate change is man-made, urgent and dangerous.

For a transcript of this video including links to some of the sources, please visit https://climatediscussionnexus.com/videos/the-97-consensus-slogan/

To support the Climate Discussion Nexus, subscribe to our YouTube channel and our newsletter at http://www.climatediscussionnexus.com, like us on Facebook, follow us on X, and make a monthly or one-time pledge at http://www.climatediscussionnexus.com


TRANSCRIPT

There are so many empty slogans out there I wish we could tackle all of them at once. But the โ€œ97% of scientists agreeโ€ is surely the elephant in the room. Lots of people have tried to rebut it by dismissing the notion of consensus itself, or by praising the historical examples of renegade scientists who went against a prevailing consensus and turned out to be right. But that unnecessarily concedes the major claim itself, which the evidence shows is simply not true. I hope you enjoy the video, and that youโ€™ll share it widely.
-JR

Narrator

The claim that 97% of the worldโ€™s scientists agree is pretty much the ace of trumps in the whole climate debate. After all, whoโ€™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. Orโ€ฆ anything.

John

At first glance it seems straightforward enough. In 2013 President Barack Obama famously tweeted that โ€œNinety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.โ€

In 2014, his Secretary of State John Kerry said 97% of โ€œthe worldโ€™s scientists tell us this is urgent.โ€ And that same year, CNN said โ€œ97% of scientists agree that climate change is happening now, that itโ€™s damaging the planet and that itโ€™s manmade.โ€

Narrator

Thatโ€™s pretty much what most people think when they hear the 97% slogan: Every scientist believes 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?

John

Letโ€™s find out. Iโ€™m John Robson and this is a Climate Discussion Nexus Fact Check on the 97 percent consensus slogan.

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 donโ€™t need a poll to tell you that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, meaning it likely has some overall warming effect. Thatโ€™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 indications 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 arenโ€™t controversial ideas, and theyโ€™re accepted even by most climate skeptics. What we donโ€™t accept is that any of them prove that humans are the only cause of global warming, or that climate change is a dangerous threat.

If 97% of scientists believed that, it would be troubling. Though even so, weโ€™d still have to find some plan whose benefits outweighed its costs. In any event, that level of consensus that the problem was manmade and urgent would certainly be noteworthy. But the thing is, they donโ€™t agree on that.

A close look at what survey data we have, and there isnโ€™t much, tells us, yes, there is 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 survey data also tell us thereโ€™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?

Narrator

The 97% claim seems to have begun with a historian of science named Naomi Oreskes who, in 2004, claimed sheโ€™d looked at 928 articles about climate change in scientific journals, that 75% of them endorsed the โ€œconsensus viewโ€ that โ€œEarthโ€™s climate is being affected by human activitiesโ€ and that none directly disputed it.

By 2006, in Al Goreโ€™s An Inconvenient Truth, this finding had somehow morphed into โ€œa 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 weโ€™re causing global warming and that itโ€™s a serious problem? Out of the 928, zero.โ€

John

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 itโ€™s a serious problem. It does no such thing.

Narrator

And nor do the handful of other surveys on the subject. For instance five 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? [Note: They asked some other questions too, but didnโ€™t report the questions or results in the publication.]

John

They didnโ€™t single out greenhouse gases, they didnโ€™t explain what the term โ€œsignificantโ€ meant and they didnโ€™t refer to danger or crisis. So what was the result?

Narrator

Of the 3,146 responses they received, 90 percent said yes to the first question, that global temperatures had risen since the Little Ice Age, and only 82 percent said yes to the second, that human activity was a significant contributing factor.

Interestingly, among meteorologists only 64 percent said yes to the second, meaning a third of the experts in the study of weather patterns who replied didnโ€™t think humans play a significant role in global warming, let alone a dominant one.

What got the most media attention was that among the 77 respondents who described themselves as climate experts, 75 said yes to the second question. 75 out of 77 is 97%.

John

OK, it didnโ€™t get any media attention that they took 77 out of 3,146 responses. But thatโ€™s the key statistical trick. They found a 97 percent consensus among 2 percent of the survey respondents. And even so it was only that thereโ€™d been some warming since the 1800s, which virtually nobody denies, and that humans are partly responsible. These experts didnโ€™t say it was dangerous or urgent, because they werenโ€™t asked. [Note: or as noted above, if they were the results werenโ€™t reported.]

So far the claim that 97% of โ€œworld scientistsโ€ are saying thereโ€™s a climate crisis is pure fiction. But wait, you say. There must be more. Yes, there is. But not much.

Narrator

Another survey appeared in 2013, by Australian researcher John Cook and his coauthors, in which they claimed 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 Obamaโ€™s tweet was referring.

John

But here again, appearances were deceiving.

Two-thirds of the papers that Cook and his colleagues examined expressed no view at all on 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 low.

The survey authors didnโ€™t ask if climate change was dangerous or โ€œmanmadeโ€. 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 โ€œurban heat islandโ€ 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 authorsโ€™ data was the answer: A mere 64 out of nearly 12,000 papers! Thatโ€™s not 97%, itโ€™s one half of one percent. Itโ€™s one in 200.

And it gets worse. In a follow-up study, climatologist David Legates read those 64 papers and found that a third of them didnโ€™t even say what Cook and his team claimed. Only 41 actually endorsed the view that global warming is mostly manmade. And we still havenโ€™t got to it being โ€œdangerousโ€. 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 three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsing 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 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 manmade, let alone that itโ€™s a crisis. The fact that people who claim to put such stock in โ€œsettled scienceโ€ accept such obvious statistical hocus pocus is both astounding and disappointing.

Narrator

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 manmade. The remaining 48% either think it happened but is mostly natural, or it didnโ€™t happen, or they donโ€™t know. And while itโ€™s possible that the three-quarters who didnโ€™t answer split the same way as those who did, itโ€™s also possible that committed alarmists are more likely to answer such surveys. In any case, itโ€™s a small sample, even of AMS members, let alone of the worldโ€™s scientists.

John

There was one more survey a few years later by the Netherlands Environment Agency that claimed 66% of climate experts believed humans were mostly responsible for warming since 1950. Which falls far short of 97% even if it outperforms the other studies.

A social psychologist named Jose Duarte, 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. Just as youโ€™ll find that the people who cite that 97% number are overwhelmingly not trained scientists, certainly not trained statisticians.

Narrator

So weโ€™re no farther 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.

John

And thereโ€™s the claim that many of the worldโ€™s national science academies, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists across the globe, have issued statements supporting the consensus about global warming and demanding government efforts to cut emissions. 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 are shared by all the worldโ€™s experts. But if they are, why didnโ€™t these authors survey their members before publishing the statements?

There are a couple of other studies that claimed 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 about whether a majority of scientists think global warming is a crisis. And then theyโ€™re spun wildly by non-scientists to tell us things they donโ€™t begin to say, often about questions they didnโ€™t even attempt to investigate .

The problem isnโ€™t just that we donโ€™t know what percentage of scientists agrees with this or that statement about global warming. Itโ€™s something much worse. All this talk of a 97% consensus 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 Feynmann once said, โ€œI would rather have questions that canโ€™t be answered than answers that canโ€™t be questioned.โ€ And thatโ€™s especially true when weโ€™re asked to take drastic action based on those answers.

Not long ago that survey expert I mentioned earlier, Jose Duarte, warned his fellow scientists about the negative consequences of claiming consensus. He said:

โ€œIt is ill advised to report a consensus as though it is an aggregation of independent judgments. Humans are an ultrasocial species, and dissent is far costlier than assent to a perceived majorityโ€ฆ 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 โ€˜deniersโ€™. 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.โ€

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 steep 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 polemics. 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 percent agreement.

For the Climate Discussion Nexus, Iโ€™m John Robson.


HT/Pierre Gosselin