The Scientific Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming: Debunking the 97% Myth

While the notion persists that a vast majority of scientific studies on climate change support the idea of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the truth is more nuanced. This article delves into the complexities and critiques surrounding the oft-cited figure of 97%.

Climate Change and the Shifting Narrative

It is a common refrain that nearly 97% of peer-reviewed articles on climate change attribute the current warming trend to anthropogenic factors. However, this figure needs to be critically examined. In 2018, every single paper written on the subject concluded that anthropogenic global warming was the cause. Moreover, numerous scientific associations globally list AGW as the primary cause of the current climate change cycle.

Significantly, the term 'climate change' began to be widely used in 2014, altering the narrative from climate change to anthropogenic global warming. This shift, however, did not align with the shift in scientific consensus. To thoroughly understand this, we must dissect the claims made in various studies, particularly a well-known 2013 assessment.

A Critical Analysis of the 97% Figure

One of the most cited studies presenting the 97% figure is from a 2013 assessment of articles published in climate journals. The abstract of this study provides a detailed analysis:

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature examining 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.
0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus that humans are causing global warming.

While it may seem that 97.1% endorsing AGW is significant, it is important to scrutinize the methodology and context. Several weaknesses in the study's design are highlighted:

Sample Bias: The survey went out to 10,000 scientists and only 3,000 responses were returned, representing a major credibility issue. Additionally, the study was heavily influenced by journals with editorial policies favoring articles that support AGW. Selection Criteria: Only those authors with more than 10 climate-related articles were included, and it is the number of articles, not the authors, that made up the 97% figure. Questionnaire Design: The survey was based on only two yes-or-no questions, which may not accurately reflect the nuanced views of the respondents.

Furthermore, a more critical analysis reveals that among climate scientists, more than 99% conclude that AGW is real. However, when considering scientists from other disciplines who do not study climate change full-time, the number is lower.

Further Examination and Critiques

Several critiques of the 97% figure further highlight its limitations:

Communist Elections Analogy: The 97% figure is often compared to Albanian elections under Enver Hoxha, where the communist leader secured 97% of the vote. This analogy is meant to cast doubt on the validity of the figure, suggesting it may be manipulated or unrepresentative. Absence of Skeptics: Critics argue that only 3% of papers rejected or expressed uncertainty about AGW, which may not accurately represent the broader scientific community's views. This is in stark contrast to the presence of prominent climate change skeptics, such as Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer, who have published extensively on the subject. Methodological Limitations: The study's methodology, including the survey design and response rate, has been heavily criticized for its limited scope and potential biases. A more comprehensive analysis would require a broader and more representative sample of scientific literature and authors.

For a deeper understanding of the consensus on AGW, one can explore the papers and summaries available on Wikipedia under the headings "Climate Consensus" or "Climate Surveys." These resources offer critical insights and highlight the nuances in the scientific debate.

Conclusion

The 97% figure, which has been widely cited as evidence of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming, is complex and requires careful examination. While climate scientists and experts largely support AGW, the broader scientific community is more divided. As with any scientific debate, it is essential to critically assess the methodologies and evidence behind such claims to ensure a balanced and informed understanding of the issue.