{"id":286214,"date":"2023-11-02T18:39:15","date_gmt":"2023-11-02T17:39:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=286214"},"modified":"2023-11-02T18:39:19","modified_gmt":"2023-11-02T17:39:19","slug":"mark-lynas-99-consensus-on-climate-change-busted-in-peer-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=286214","title":{"rendered":"Mark Lynas \u201899% Consensus\u2019 on Climate Change \u2013 Busted in Peer Review."},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature? A study which claims over 99% consensus appears to be unsupported by the evidence, because neutral papers were misclassified, and skeptic papers were ignored.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

From email:

My name is Yonatan Dubi, I am a professor of chemistry and physics at Ben Gurion University, Israel. I am also one of Israel\u2019s leading advocates for rational environmentalism and climate realism. Together with a few colleagues we have conducted a very nice research, detailing and quantifying the flaws in the famous consensus study by Lynas et al, which (falsely) claimed the ridiculous 99% consensus. After a year long journey, our paper was finally published in the peer reviewed journal Climate, the link is https:\/\/www.mdpi.com\/2225-1154\/11\/11\/215<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The conclusion does not follow from the data\u201d: Israeli study trashes extreme global warming consensus claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Ninety-Nine Percent? Re-Examining the Consensus on the Anthropogenic Contribution to Climate Change <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

David Dentelski<\/strong><\/a> <\/sup>, Ran Damari<\/strong><\/a> <\/sup>, Yanir Marmor<\/strong><\/a> <\/sup>, Avner Niv<\/a><\/strong> <\/sup>, Mor Roses<\/strong><\/a> <\/sup> and Yonatan Dubi<\/strong><\/a> <\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Climate<\/em> 2023<\/strong>, 11<\/em>(11), 215; https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/cli11110215<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Received: 16 September 2023 \/ Revised: 24 October 2023 \/ Accepted: 26 October 2023 \/ Published: 30 October 2023<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(This article belongs to the Section Policy, Governance, and Social Equity<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anthropogenic activity is considered a central driver of current climate change. A recent paper, studying the consensus regarding the hypothesis that the recent increase in global temperature is predominantly human-made via the emission of greenhouse gasses (see text for reference), argued that the scientific consensus in the peer-reviewed scientific literature pertaining to this hypothesis exceeds 99%. This conclusion was reached after the authors scanned the abstracts and titles of some 3000 papers and mapped them according to their (abstract) statements regarding the above hypothesis. Here, we point out some major flaws in the methodology, analysis, and conclusions of the study. Using the data provided in the study, we show that the 99% consensus, as defined by the authors, is actually an upper limit evaluation because of the large number of \u201cneutral\u201d papers which were counted as pro-consensus in the paper and probably does not reflect the true situation. We further analyze these results by evaluating how so-called \u201cskeptic\u201d papers fit the consensus and find that biases in the literature, which were not accounted for in the aforementioned study, may place the consensus on the low side. Finally, we show that the rating method used in the study suffers from a subjective bias which is reflected in large variations between ratings of the same paper by different raters. All these lead to the conclusion that the conclusions of the study does not follow from the data.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The original study, to which the above is a response;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark Lynas, Benjamin Z Houlton and Simon Perry<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Published 19 October 2021 \u2022 \u00a9 2021 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters<\/a>, Volume 16<\/a>, Number 11<\/a>Citation<\/strong> Mark Lynas et al<\/em> 2021 Environ. Res. Lett.<\/em> 16<\/strong> 114005DOI<\/strong> 10.1088\/1748-9326\/ac2966<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While controls over the Earth\u2019s climate system have undergone rigorous hypothesis-testing since the 1800s, questions over the scientific consensus of the role of human activities in modern climate change continue to arise in public settings. We update previous efforts to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change by searching the recent literature for papers sceptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change\u2014expressed as a proportion of the total publications\u2014exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026Read more: https:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/article\/10.1088\/1748-9326\/ac2966<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

What a surprise \u2013 a study which claims over 99% consensus appears to be unsupported by the evidence, because neutral papers were misclassified, and skeptic papers were ignored.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lynas, et. al., is probably the worst case of confirmation bias<\/a> ever published. Of course, we all knew that when we first saw it. The Lynas paper was all about grabbing headlines, not science. Now watch the fun as Lynas et. al. tries to defend their paper, with even greater levels of nonsense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature? A study which claims over 99% consensus appears to be unsupported by the evidence, because neutral papers were misclassified, and skeptic papers were ignored. From Watts Up With That? From email: My name is Yonatan Dubi, I am a professor of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":286221,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature? A study which claims over 99% consensus appears to be unsupported by the evidence, because neutral papers were misclassified, and skeptic papers were ign","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691824200,691824201,691818169,691818090,691824199],"class_list":{"0":"post-286214","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-99-consensus","9":"tag-anthropogenic-activity","10":"tag-bad-science","11":"tag-climate-warning","12":"tag-mark-lynas","14":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/OIG.WHu4q98jGip.jpeg?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1csm","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":289488,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=289488","url_meta":{"origin":286214,"position":0},"title":"New Study: 67% Of Scientific Papers Can Be Said To Reject The AGW Hypothesis\u2026","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"12\/01\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"From NoTricksZone By\u00a0Kenneth Richard\u00a0on\u00a030. November 2023 \u2026when using the same assumption-based methodology to arrive at the conclusion only 0.5% of scientific papers reject AGW. In a new study, six scientists (Dentelski et al., 2023) effectively eviscerate a methodologically flawed 2021 study (Lynas et al.) that claims 99.53% of 3,000 scientific\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"anthropogenic global warming\"","block_context":{"text":"anthropogenic global warming","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=anthropogenic-global-warming"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/05fa4da31b6c3a4f674fd48d8_warming-2370285_1920.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/05fa4da31b6c3a4f674fd48d8_warming-2370285_1920.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/05fa4da31b6c3a4f674fd48d8_warming-2370285_1920.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/05fa4da31b6c3a4f674fd48d8_warming-2370285_1920.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/05fa4da31b6c3a4f674fd48d8_warming-2370285_1920.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":381017,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=381017","url_meta":{"origin":286214,"position":1},"title":"\ud835\udc13\ud835\udc21\ud835\udc1e \ud835\udfd7\ud835\udfd5% \ud835\udc02\ud835\udc28\ud835\udc27\ud835\udc2c\ud835\udc1e\ud835\udc27\ud835\udc2c\ud835\udc2e\ud835\udc2c \ud835\udc0c\ud835\udc32\ud835\udc2d\ud835\udc21 \ud835\udc03\ud835\udc1e\ud835\udc1b\ud835\udc2e\ud835\udc27\ud835\udc24\ud835\udc1e\ud835\udc1d","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"05\/31\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"One of the most pervasive myths is that 97% (or sometimes stated as >99%) of \u201cclimate scientists\u201d agree that virtually all global warming since the mid-19th century is human-caused and that this warming is an existential threat to the welfare of the planet and all life on it.","rel":"","context":"In \"\u201cclimate scientists\u201d\"","block_context":{"text":"\u201cclimate scientists\u201d","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-scientists-2"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/0ChatGPT-Image-31.-Mai-2025-13_13_42.png?fit=800%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/0ChatGPT-Image-31.-Mai-2025-13_13_42.png?fit=800%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/0ChatGPT-Image-31.-Mai-2025-13_13_42.png?fit=800%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/0ChatGPT-Image-31.-Mai-2025-13_13_42.png?fit=800%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":350051,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=350051","url_meta":{"origin":286214,"position":2},"title":"Claim: Weather Disasters are Fuelling Climate Denial","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"11\/03\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"A group of psychologists have claimed fear drives deniers to reject the truth. But they ignore evidence academic groupthink hysteria is the real \u201cclimate crisis\u201d.","rel":"","context":"In \"climate alarmism\"","block_context":{"text":"climate alarmism","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-alarmism"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/0-Hurricane.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/0-Hurricane.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/0-Hurricane.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/0-Hurricane.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/0-Hurricane.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":282181,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=282181","url_meta":{"origin":286214,"position":3},"title":"A Conversation with Google Bard on the Consensus","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"10\/06\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Google Bard Ai Presentation From\u00a0Watts Up With That? By Andy May It turns out it is trivially easy to get Google\u2019s AI product \u201cBard\u201d to admit it is biased about climate change. Others, like Jonathan Cohler have managed to get \u201cBard\u201d to admit it lied. I didn\u2019t get that far,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0google-bard-chatgpt.jpg?fit=1200%2C706&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0google-bard-chatgpt.jpg?fit=1200%2C706&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0google-bard-chatgpt.jpg?fit=1200%2C706&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0google-bard-chatgpt.jpg?fit=1200%2C706&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0google-bard-chatgpt.jpg?fit=1200%2C706&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":292902,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=292902","url_meta":{"origin":286214,"position":4},"title":"BBC \u2018Disinformation\u2019 Reporter Plans Six-Month Sabbatical to go on Climate Course Funded by Green Billionaires","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"12\/29\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Marco Silva is taking time out from his role as a senior reporter for BBC Verify specialising in \u2018climate disinformation\u2019 to enrol on a six-month course at the\u00a0Oxford Climate Journalism Network\u00a0(OCJN), a green activist operation funded by billionaire foundations promoting the collectivist Net Zero project.","rel":"","context":"In \"BBC Verify\"","block_context":{"text":"BBC Verify","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=bbc-verify"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0Screenshot-2023-12-28-at-00.47.15.png?fit=1200%2C670&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0Screenshot-2023-12-28-at-00.47.15.png?fit=1200%2C670&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0Screenshot-2023-12-28-at-00.47.15.png?fit=1200%2C670&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0Screenshot-2023-12-28-at-00.47.15.png?fit=1200%2C670&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0Screenshot-2023-12-28-at-00.47.15.png?fit=1200%2C670&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":276549,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=276549","url_meta":{"origin":286214,"position":5},"title":"\u201c97% Consensus\u201d \u2014 What Consensus?","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"08\/31\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"If those promoting man-made climate fear need to resort to an obviously flawed consensus opinion, rather than argue the merits of the science, haven\u2019t they already conceded that their argument cannot be won through open debate?","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/00yTTaXqVEGkU.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/00yTTaXqVEGkU.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/00yTTaXqVEGkU.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/00yTTaXqVEGkU.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/00yTTaXqVEGkU.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/286214","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=286214"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/286214\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":286222,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/286214\/revisions\/286222"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/286221"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=286214"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=286214"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=286214"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}