Thread by @ChrisMartzWX

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝟗𝟕% 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐬 𝐌𝐲𝐭𝐡 𝐃𝐞𝐛𝐮𝐧𝐤𝐞𝐝

One of the most pervasive myths in science is that 97% (or sometimes stated as >99%) of “climate scientists” agree that 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.

Except, this statistic is largely made up, and no matter how many times it is quashed, it persists as a talking point in online forums to weasel a way out of an honest discussion.

The “consensus of scientists” is not organic. Rather, it was manufactured through questionable data processing methods in two studies published in Environmental Research Letters (ERL): Cook et al. (2013) and Lynas et al. (2021).

Let's look closer at these studies. 🔎

𝐓𝐇𝐄 “𝟗𝟕% 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐄𝐒𝐍𝐒𝐔𝐒”

The paper that got this all started was published in ERL in 2013.

🔗 iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108…

Led by cognitive psychologist John Cook—a Senior Research Fellow at the Melbourne Centre for Behaviour Change and founder of the climate blog, Skeptical Science—he and eight co-authors skimmed the abstracts of 11,944 climate-related papers published between 1991 and 2011.

Of the 11,944 abstracts, a total of 7,930 (66.4%) of them expressed 𝒏𝒐 𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 on the cause(s) of global warming since the pre-industrial era.

Of the remaining 4,014 abstracts that endorsed either anthropogenic global warming (AGW) or natural global warming, 3,896 (97.1%) endorsed AGW in at least some capacity, while 78 (1.9%) questioned or rejected AGW. The remaining 40 (1%) of papers expressed uncertainty.

But, it gets even more nuanced than that if we look at the abstracts and pick them apart. On whether global warming is being caused entirely by human activities, by nature, or by a combination of both, of those 4,014 papers, they state, warming is caused:

🔴 Entirely by humans: 64 papers (1.59%)
🟤 >>50% by humans: 922 (22.96%)
🟡 Equally natural + man-made: 2,910 (72.50%)
🟢 >>50% by natural cycles: 54 (1.35%)
🔵 Man is causing no warming: 24 (0.60%)
🤷 Don't know: 40 (1.00%)

So, a “97% consensus” can be contrived by either (a) omitting the 7,930 (66.4% of) abstracts in the 11,944-paper sample that did not explicitly state a position on the drivers of global warming, or by (b) lumping all 3,896 abstracts that endorsed at least some anthropogenic component as entirely endorsing AGW.

Either way, that's sausage-making. 🌭

Because either way you compute this data honestly, there is far from a “97% consensus” that most or all global warming is man-made. There's only a 24.6% consensus on that, at best. There is a 97% consensus that at least 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 of that warming is man-made, but that doesn't mean that all (or even most) has been.

But, what about the >99% consensus?

Let's find out. 🔎

𝐓𝐇𝐄 “>𝟗𝟗% 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐄𝐒𝐍𝐒𝐔𝐒”

Like Cook et al. (2013), Lynas et al. (2021) attempted to quantify the consensus on AGW.

🔗 iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108…

In this synthesis, 3,000 climate papers were selected at random. In that batch, 282 were marked as false positives since they weren't actually climate-related. That’s fair. So, the analysis continued with the remaining 2,718 peer-reviewed articles.

Of those, 1,869 (68.8%) of them took 𝒏𝒐 𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 on AGW. And, like Cook et al. (2013), all 1,869 papers neither endorsing nor rejecting AGW were discarded. Of the remaining 849 papers that did endorse a position, 845 (99.5%) of them sided with AGW while four did not.

So, like Cook et al. (2013), Lynas et al. (2021) ignored over 65% of the papers selected that didn't take one position or the other on the physical driver(s) of global warming. By doing this, the authors could artificially manufacture a consensus on an issue where none actually existed if all of the relevant papers were considered.

The advantage that Lynas et al. (2021) has over Cook et al. (2013) is that each paper was examined thoroughly rather than just the abstract. This made for a more thorough analysis despite the same flawed methodology both used in ignoring the majority of papers that took a neutral stance.

🧵 1/4 (Keep reading) ⬇️

But, wait, there's more. . .

Climate activists often argue that the authors of Cook et al. (2013) and Lynas et al. (2021) were justified in excluding the 66.4% and 68.8% of papers, respectively, that did not express a position on the causes of global warming, on the grounds that those studies were not focused on identifying or discussing causal links.

But, that's hand-waving. 👋

Not all studies that endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) specifically investigated the physical driver(s) of surface air temperature (SAT) change since the mid-19th century. In fact, in order to qualify as endorsing (or rejecting) AGW, a paper merely needed to take a stance on the issue, regardless of whether or not the study's focus was on the physical drivers of climate change.

You will find when reading through the literature that even papers challenging the conventional narrative—such as on topics like climate model performance, trends in extreme weather, and/or the efficacy of “net zero” energy policies—include a disclaimer stating that mankind's carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions are the proximate cause of all global warming. This is done so that the paper satisfies the reviewers and journal editors enough to get accepted for publication. This is the science equivalent of a land acknowledgement to be in good standing with gatekeepers.

As a good recent example, in Vecchi et al. (2021), the authors challenged the idea that recent increases in Atlantic hurricane and major hurricane frequency are a true climate-related trend, arguing that increases are due to technological advancements in observation and that natural variability drives oscillatory patterns seen once counts are adjusted. They say,

🗨️ “𝑾𝒆 𝒔𝒖𝒈𝒈𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝒄𝒍𝒊𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒗𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒂𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑜𝑙-𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑖𝑑-𝑡𝑜-𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒-20𝑡ℎ 𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑦 𝑚𝑎𝑗𝑜𝑟 ℎ𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒃𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒚 𝒎𝒂𝒔𝒌𝒆𝒅 𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒚-𝒔𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒆 𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒆𝒏𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒔𝒆-𝒈𝒂𝒔 𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒃𝒖𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝑵𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒉 𝑨𝒕𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒄 𝒎𝒂𝒋𝒐𝒓 𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒆 𝒇𝒓𝒆𝒒𝒖𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒚.”

The last part could have more been accurately stated as something to the effect of,

🗨️ “𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑚𝑎𝑗𝑜𝑟 ℎ𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑡ℎ 𝐴𝑡𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑐 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑒𝑎 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠 (𝑆𝑆𝑇𝑠), 𝑤ℎ𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑚𝑎𝑦 𝑏𝑒. 𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐴𝑡𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑛 𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑠. 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑎 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑝 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑖𝑑-1960𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒-80𝑠 𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝐴𝑡𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑀𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 (𝐴𝑀𝑉) 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑜𝑙-𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛.”

But, the authors more than likely had to include the greenhouse gas (GHG) statement in order to not come across as “denialists” and be met with rejection by the journal editors, who more often than not, have predetermined conclusions and worldviews that they don't want to be challenged.

🧵 2/4 (keep reading) ⬇️

Another point I should add about Cook et al. (2013) and Lynas et al. (2021) is that neither paper frame their findings as being a reflection of the “consensus of scientists.” So, when climate activists claim that 97-99% of experts agree, that's not accurately stating what these studies purport.

Rather, the papers actually attempted to quantify the “scientific consensus” on AGW, which is a consensus of what the published literature says. That is different from a “consensus of scientists,” which is essentially nothing more than an expert opinion poll.

What's more, neither of these reviews addressed the million-dollar question, which is whether or not global warming has been [or will be] dangerous. Just because our GHG emissions 𝑚𝑎𝑦 have caused some or even most of the warming since the onset of the Industrial Revolution, that tells us nothing remotely useful about the level of danger posed by it short- and long-term.

So, what do we actually know about what scientists think about (a) the cause(s) of global warming and (b) whether or not they think it is dangerous?

Thankfully, we have some insight into that.

🧵 3/4 (Keep reading) ⬇️

This is where things get juicy. 🧃

While a “consensus of scientists” (i.e., expert opinion poll) is less robust than a “scientific consensus” (i.e., synthesis of published literature), one advantage that polling scientists for their opinion has over the latter is that it gives them anonymity to express their views on the issue without having to fear losing their job or having their paper(s) rejected by biased journal editors (the gatekeepers).

Prestigious, lauded scientific organizations such as the American Geophysical Union (AGU), the American Meteorological Society (AMS), and the Royal Society have manufactured a “consensus of scientists” by taking a very strong stance on the climate issue without first consulting their members for their views.

One egregious instance of where this occurred is with the AMS.

On July 8, 2022, in response to the Supreme Court's ruling in West Virginia v. EPA—which essentially limited the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from power plants—the former Executive Director of AMS issued a strongly worded “Special Statement” criticizing the Court's ruling,

🗨️ “𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑨𝑴𝑺 𝒊𝒔 𝒅𝒆𝒆𝒑𝒍𝒚 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒓𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒃𝒚 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑼𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒔' 𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒅𝒆𝒒𝒖𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝒄𝒍𝒊𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒅𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒊𝒕 𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒆𝒔 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒. 𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑐𝑦 𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑙𝑦—𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝑏𝑦 𝑛𝑜 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦—𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑆𝑢𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑡 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑊𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑉𝑖𝑟𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑎 𝑣. 𝐸𝑃𝐴.”

The letter continues, asserting without presenting a single shred of evidence, that,

🗨️ “𝑪𝒍𝒊𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒆𝒙𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒍𝒚 𝒅𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒔 𝑡𝑜 ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒... 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒏𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒄𝒍𝒊𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆 𝒐𝒄𝒄𝒖𝒓𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒏𝒐𝒘 𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒄𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒔 𝑤𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒆𝒏𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒔𝒆 [sic] 𝒈𝒂𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒑𝒐𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝒅𝒓𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆: 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑢𝑛, 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑒𝑠, 𝑎𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑠, 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑-𝑢𝑠𝑒, 𝑜𝑟 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦.”

🔗ametsoc.org/ams/assets/Fil…

And, of course, this politically motivated jab at the Republican-led Supreme Court was issued without the consultation of every professional member of the AMS.

I know this because we actually have good insight into what AMS members think about (a) the cause(s) of global warming since the 1960s and (b) whether or not they think that said warming is dangerous.

In January 2016, Dr. Ed Maibach and colleagues from George Mason University (GMU) polled all 7,682 (at that time) professional members of the AMS on their views on climate change. A handful of questions were asked with several follow-ups.

🔗gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.com/CP/File.php?F=…

The survey had a 53.3% participation rate and there were 4,092 respondents (p. 1). 📋

Here are a sample of the questions asked:

1⃣ 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲, 𝗱𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴? (4,091 responses)

✅ Yes: 96%
❌ No: 1%
🤷 Don't know: 3%

✦ [Follow-up, only asked to those who answered “Yes” to 1] 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴? (3,854 responses)

🟢 Extremely sure: 58%
🔵 Very sure: 31%
🟡 Somewhat sure: 10%
🔴 Not sure: 0%

✦ [Follow-up, only asked to those who answered “No” to 1] 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴? (53 responses)

🟢 Extremely sure: 13%
🔵 Very sure: 43%
🟡 Somewhat sure: 38%
🔴 Not sure: 6%

2⃣ 𝗗𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗼𝗰𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝟱𝟬 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱... (4,004 responses)

🔴 Largely / entirely by humans (>81%): 29%
🟤 Mostly by humans (60-80%): 38%
🟡 Roughly equally natural + man-made: 14%
🟢 Mostly by natural events (60-80%): 7%
🔵 Largely / entirely by natural events (>81%): 5%
🤷 Don't know: 6%
❌ Climate has not changed: 1%

6⃣ 𝗧𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲, 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗮 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝟱𝟬 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀? (4,002 responses)

✅ Yes: 74%
❌ No: 11%
🤷 Don't know: 15%

✦ [Follow-up, only asked to those who answered “Yes” to 6] 𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗯𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁(𝘀) 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗮 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝟱𝟬 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀? (3,546 responses)

🟢 Exclusively beneficial: 0%
🔵 Primarily beneficial: 4%
🟡 Equally mixed, beneficial + harmful: 36%
🟤 Primarily harmful: 36%
🔴 Exclusively harmful: 2%
🤷 Don't know: 21%

7⃣ 𝗧𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲, 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗮 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝟱𝟬 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀? (3,963 responses)

✅ Yes: 78%
❌ No: 5%
🤷 Don't know: 17%

✦ [Follow-up, only asked to those who answered “Yes” to 7] 𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗯𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁(𝘀) 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗮 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝟱𝟬 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀? (3,761 responses)

🟢 Exclusively beneficial: 0%
🔵 Primarily beneficial: 2%
🟡 Equally mixed, beneficial + harmful: 29%
🟤 Primarily harmful: 47%
🔴 Exclusively harmful: 3%
🤷 Don't know: 19%

So, based on this 2016 survey of professional AMS members, of those who responded,

• 96% of AMS members agree that climate change is occurring, regardless of the proximate cause.

• 67% of AMS members agree that change has primarily been human-caused, but the contribution estimates vary considerably. 67% is far from a consensus given that 33% have a different opinion.

• 38% of AMS members agree that the impacts of climate change in their localities have been negative over the last 50 years. However, 40% said that the impacts have been mixed or primarily beneficial, and 21% said that they weren't sure.

So, what can we truly conclude about the “consensus of scientists” on climate change?

• Is climate change occurring? ✅

• Human activities contribute to global warming in at least 𝑺𝑶𝑴𝑬 capacity? ✅

• Climate change is [or will be] dangerous? ❌

And, this exactly summarizes my position (despite the constant framing by detractors that I'm a “denier”). It also matches fairly closely with the abstracts in Cook et al. (2013) once you categorize the papers' findings correctly and account for nuance.

Thus, just because global warming is real and we do play some role in causing it is still not a good enough justification to rapidly eliminate fossil fuels from our energy mix. There must be sufficient proof that this warming poses a great threat to the welfare of the planet and life on it, and that has yet to be provided.

So, when climate alarmists [most of whom have no qualifications of their own] claim that I am standing at odds with organizations like the AMS or NASA, quite frankly, I don't care.

It is clear from the survey results presented above that there is a greater disagreement among scientists than you are led to believe by what both the gatekeepers allow to be published in journals and what higher-ups within scientific organizations claim is the universal position among their members without first consulting them for their opinions.

And, if you accuse skeptics of intentionally sowing doubt to delay action because they're allegedly Big Oil lobbyists, all that tells me is that you are an activist, not a dispassionate, objective scientist, and/or that you are a lobbyist for Big Government and the anti-fossil fuel industrial complex (or “Big Green”).

🧵 4/4 (End)