The claim that 97% of “climate scientists” back the AGW theory is 100% bullshit

I always laugh when some ecotard recycles the bullshit line that 97% of climate scientists are in consensus that AGW is real and it’s solely cause by humans.

This time around some Neville nobody from the Fairfax owned Warrnambool Strand claims the climate debate is over and would “love to see my fellow journalists and reporters put a ban on covering the views of climate change deniers.”

Anyway, Tim Blair carves this useful idiot up in his blog.

Here is the truth about the 97 per cent consensus claim.

The small number of climate scientists actually supporting the IPCC claims of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is a lie. The ecotards 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 “climate scientists” agreed with the 2007 IPCC report.

Soon after 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 publicised “97%” of climate scientists (75 divided by 77) who thought humans are the cause of global warming turned out to be a numeric joke.

Plenty of scientists openly oppose the IPCC’s findings – like the 31,000 scientists who signed a petition denying that humans are responsible for “global warming”.

“Climate science” is in a shambles and the real scientists are battling the socialist UN green agenda.

Maybe that's why the IPCC now admits its past reports were garbage.

Update:

Good to see Forbes.com have also jumped on this story. The AGW consensus lie is unraveling piece by piece.

The only way you get a “consensus” is with a big bag full of cash.

Update:

The fine people at WUWT decided to graph the data to give some much needed perspective. Apparently, the majority of AGU members polled didn’t think this poll on climate change consensus was worth returning.

 

Follow Andy on twitter

Comments

[Silverlocust]

Andy, your statement that only "only 77 chose to answer the online survey (yes, only 77)" is incorrect. In fact, you include a bar graph that demonstrates your error.
The survey was sent to 10,257 scientists and was responded to by 3,146. The figure of 77 is the number of regularly publishing climate scientists that the researchers gleaned from the respondents. True, not a very representative figure.
A far more rigorous (in both sampling and questioning) and more recent survey was conducted by a group from the US National Academy of Scientists. From a database of 1,372 climate scientists, they gleaned 908 who had authored at least 20 publications concerned with climate science (and therefore of high expertise).
Of those, 97-98% "support the tenets of anthropogenic climate change" as stated by the IPCC.
A link to that report is here >>
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf

[Fredfighter]

If 'Andy' is right as to these numbers:

10257 surveyed (population)
77 responded (sample size)
75 of responses were in the affirmative

Then statistics tells us that the probability is 97.5% that more than 93% of the climate scientists (e.g. more than 9500 of the 10257) are in agreement with the survey, right?

So THAT is really what should have been reported, thought he most probably number is 97%.

--

FF

[JMH]

Keep the pressure applied, Andy.

I have been lurking for some time but took the plunge today just to let you know I really like your blog.

Steve and Larry's cartoons have been spot on.

JMH