Qué significa que haya "consenso del 97%" en el origen humano del cambio climático

Buenos días. Tengo la prueba matemática elemental que desmiente el bulo del llamado <<consenso del 97 por ciento>> sobre el supuesto calentamiento global antropogénico, AGW por sus siglas en inglés. El análisis se basa en la evidencia de la tosca trampa de cálculo realizada por John Cook en su famoso estudio, auspiciado por Barak Obama y la mayoría de los líderes de las democracias occidentales. Con los datos del propio Cook, se evidencia mediante cálculos muy simples que el verdadero consenso es del 32 por ciento, como máximo. Si les interesa, puedo facilitarles el documento que detalla la burda manipulación matemática que prueba la falacia en cuestión. Un saludo. La mentira del 97% | Jose Ramón Ferrandis https://www.tiktok.com/@ancast/video/7513507371331669270 Lo del 97% es una falacia espantosa. Se hizo una pregunta en su día a los científicos en general, “oiga, ¿usted cree que el ser humano tiene alguna influencia en el clima?”. Esa fue la pregunta. Y la respuesta fue “hombre, alguna (no queda claro cuánta) sí”. El 97% contestó así, el 3% dijo “no, ninguna”. Y desde entonces se dice que el 97% de los científicos consultados dicen que el ser humano es el responsable de los cambios en el clima. Pero esa no fue la pregunta. ¿Quién se va al origen de la preguntita? Pues prácticamente nadie. Hasta que llegan las investigaciones y demuestran que era otra [pregunta]. —- Contenidos fuera de la tarjeta —- https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1927757632984481941 - https://archive.li/wip/MtPAp 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝟗𝟕% 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐬 𝐌𝐲𝐭𝐡 𝐃𝐞𝐛𝐮𝐧𝐤𝐞𝐝 One of the most pervasive myths is that 97% of “climate scientists” 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. This statistic is largely made up, and no matter how many times it is quashed, it persists as a talking point in online forums. The “consensus of scientists” with respect to climate change is not organic. It was manufactured through questionable data processing methods. When someone states the axiom “All scientists agree,” it is usually a reference to two particular studies, both of which were 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. 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, 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 which endorsed either anthropogenic global warming (AGW) or natural global warming, 3,896 (97.1%) endorsed AGW. Only 78 (1.9%) rejected AGW, while 40 (1%) of them expressed uncertainty on the physical drivers. So, the “97% consensus” was contrived by omitting 7,930 (66.4%) of the 11,944 abstracts because those papers did not explicitly state a position on the cause(s) of global warming since the 1850s or so. 𝐓𝐇𝐄 “>𝟗𝟗% 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐄𝐒𝐍𝐒𝐔𝐒” Lynas et al. (2021) attempted to quantify the consensus on AGW. 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. 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 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. 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, they could artificially manufacture a consensus on an issue where none actually exists if all of the relevant papers were considered. The advantage that Lynas et al. (2021) has over the former is that each paper was examined thoroughly rather than just reading 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. Climate activists often argue that 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. Not all studies that endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) specifically investigated the physical driver(s) of surface air temperature changes since the mid-to-late-19th century. In fact, in order to qualify as endorsing (or rejecting) AGW, a paper merely needed to articulate a clear stance—whether in the abstract, main body or discussion / conclusion—regardless of whether or not the study's focus was on physical drivers of temperature change. You will find when reading through the literature that papers challenging the narrative—such as those on topics like climate model performance, temporal trends in extreme weather events and efficacy of “net zero” energy policies—will include a disclaimer stating that mankind's carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions are the proximate cause of all global warming in order to pass through peer-review, as to not sow doubt in readers that climate change is an existential crisis. As an example, a study on U.S. mainland hurricane landfalls might conclude that no increase in either the frequency or intensity has been observed since, say, 1900. However, the authors will include a statement, usually in the conclusion, something along the lines of, 🗨️ “𝐴𝑙𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑈.𝑆. 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑 ℎ𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑘𝑒𝑠 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑙𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑒 1900, 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑛𝑜 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑠 𝑜𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑒𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑎𝑗𝑜𝑟 ℎ𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑠 𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦, 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑏𝑦 𝑥% 𝑎𝑠 𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑒 𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝐺𝐻𝐺 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠.” Another point I should add is that neither paper frame their findings as being a reflection of the “consensus of scientists.” Thus, when people claim that 97-99% of experts agree, that's not actually 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 very different from a “consensus of scientists,” which is essentially an expert opinion poll. What's more, none of these reviews address the big question, which is whether or not global warming is [or will be] dangerous. Just because our greenhouse gas emissions 𝑚𝑎𝑦 have caused most of the warming observed since the onset of the Industrial Revolution says nothing about the level of danger or risk posed by it both short- and long-term. So, what do we actually know about what scientists think about the cause(s) of global warming and whether or not they think it is dangerous? Thankfully, we have some insight into that. 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 what the published literature concludes), one advantage that polling scientists for their opinion has over the latter is that it gives them anonymity to freely express their views on highly contentious topics such as climate change without having to fear losing a job or having their paper(s) rejected by biased journal editors (the gatekeepers). Professional organizations including the American Geophysical Union (AGU), the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and Royal Society often manufacture a “consensus of scientists” by taking a very strong stance on an issue without first consulting the opinions of their members. One egregious instance of where this has occurred is within the AMS (which I am a member of). 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 𝒈𝒂𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒑𝒐𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝒅𝒓𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆: 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑢𝑛, 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑒𝑠, 𝑎𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑠, 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑-𝑢𝑠𝑒, 𝑜𝑟 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦.” And, of course, this politically motivated jab at the 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 the cause(s) of global warming since the 1960s and whether or not they think 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. 🔗https://gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.com/CP/File.php?F=F_cRR9lW0HjZaiVV3 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 1⃣] 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 1⃣] 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 6⃣] 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 7⃣] 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% agree that change has primarily been human-caused, but the contribution estimates vary considerably. 67% is far from a consensus. • 38% 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. What can we conclude about the “consensus of scientists” on climate change? • Is climate change occurring? ✅ • Human activities contribute to global warming in at least 𝑺𝑶𝑴𝑬 capacity? ✅ • All global warming over the last half century has been man-made? ❌ • Climate change is [or will be] dangerous? ❌ 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. https://t.me/cienciaclimatica/4175 (es una traducción del siguiente tuit) Constantemente nos dicen que “existe un consenso abrumador entre los científicos del mundo de que el calentamiento global es causado por el hombre y es peligroso”. Escuchamos que “entre el 97 y el 99 % de los expertos están de acuerdo” 👨‍🔬 . “La ciencia está resuelta”, dicen. Caso cerrado. 👏 Por supuesto, cualquiera que haya tenido alguna formación en una ciencia física sabe que hay disputas entre científicos todo el tiempo. Si hay algo en lo que más del 97% de los expertos en clima están de acuerdo es en que no quieren perder su flujo constante de financiación. 💵 ¿De dónde surgió este “consenso del 97%”, se preguntarán? 🤔 Bueno, esto fue ideado hace 11 años en un estudio publicado en la revista Environmental Research Letters (ERL), por Cook et al. (2013). 📓 https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1860915765324476756 - https://archive.li/wip/kAVSW We are constantly told that “There is an overwhelming consensus among the world's scientists that global warming is human-caused and is dangerous.” We hear that “97 to >99% of experts agree.” 👨‍🔬 “The science is settled,” they say. Case closed. 👏 Of course, anyone who has had any training in a physical science knows that there are disputes among scientists all the time. If there is anything that over 97% of climate experts are guaranteed to agree on, it's that they don't want to lose their steady stream of funding. 💵 Where did this “97% consensus” originate from, you might ask? 🤔 Well, it was contrived 11 years ago in a study published in the journal, Environmental Research Letters (ERL), Cook et al. (2013). 📓 The authors reviewed a total of 11,944 abstracts from climate-related peer-reviewed papers published in a 20-year interval between 1991 and 2011. Of those examined, 7,930 (66.4%) of them expressed 𝒏𝒐 𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 on the cause(s) of global warming. It even explicitly states this in the abstract. Of the remaining 4,014 studies that took one position or the other, 3,896 (~97.1%) endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory (i.e., the idea that most, if not all of the warming since ~1850 has been caused by mankind's greenhouse gas emissions). So, what can we deduce from this? 🤔 The “97% consensus” was manufactured by sausage-making. The authors omitted 7,930 (66.4%) of the 11,944 climate abstracts examined because they did not take a position on the cause(s) of global warming over the last century and some change. 🌭 These methods were carried out again in a follow-up study, Lynas et al. (2021), also published in ERL, which claims there's a “99.5% consensus.” In this study, 3,000 climate papers were selected at random. Of those, 282 were false positives, as it turns out they were not actually climate-related. So, they were tossed out and left out of consideration. The authors continued with examining 2,718 remaining papers. 🗒️ Of those, 1,869 (68.8%) of them took 𝒏𝒐 𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 on the causes of global climate change. 849 of them did and 845 (99.5%) endorsed AGW theory. 845 ÷ 849 ≈ 0.995 or ~99.5%. Between both studies, if the calculations were done correctly, we're looking at more like a 31.1-32.6% “scientific consensus” that >50% of global warming has been anthropogenic in origin. Regardless, even I think there has been at least some anthropogenic-induced warming. How much? I cannot say with certainty. But, even if there were a “97-99.5% consensus” on the root cause(s), there is no consensus that the warming is dangerous. That is the weakest part of the alarmists' entire argument.