97% of climate scientists agree fact or fiction_issue 1_160925

97% of climate scientists agree: fact or fiction

Author: Gordon Hirst

Issue 1: 25/09/16

Pa

ge1

97% of climate scientists agree: fact or fiction?

How science goes from myth to reality, then back again

By: Gordon Hirst Bsc. (hons) – Appropriate Technology Consultant

If you even take a vague interest in the climate change debate you will almost certainly be familiar with

this figure which has been reverberating around the media like a hyperbolic sound bite.

The 97% figure is quoted directly from a scientific study “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic

global warming in the scientific literature” (Cook et al 2013)1. It has been elevated from being the

conclusion of an obscure scientific study to a global meme and has now taken on an almost mystical

significance. It is as much infamous for the legions of skeptics, deniers and refuters as it is for its

advocates. Almost becoming Frankenstein’s monster which eventually consumes and destroys its

creator

Since the now famous tweet2, this figure has been become part of the popular narrative. Perhaps more

seriously I have also noticed an increasing number of climate change deniers calling foul on climate

change research and suggesting it is a conspiracy perpetuated by the science community for the their

own ends.3

It did strike me that what we seem to be lacking more than anything else is a clear, level-headed debate

over where this figure came from? What is the science behind it? Just how accurate is it? And why has it

been such a divisive focal point for both sides of the argument? It has also afforded me the opportunity

to re-examine my own conviction of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)

Yes: this has been done before but personally if like me you’re a climate change advocate and have

been underwhelmed by the media circus which has descended from professional scientific debate into

heated name calling.

As with polarized nature of main stream media, it appears to be business as usual, support on one side,

denial on the other, there does not appear to be any balanced interpretation. Having declared my



Issue 1: 25/09/16

Pa

ge2

allegiance from the start, I will however attempt to conduct the investigation of this argument in the

most even handed and pragmatic fashion possible. I have tried to highlight the flaws in both sides of the

argument and where and how erroneous information creeps in and manifests itself.

To start with, I will cover the basics of just how science works and why it is virtually impossible to

‘conspire’ to falsify scientific studies. This article is constructed on data pulled directly from articles,

documents and papers that appear online. What I am reporting here exists, whether you agree with

what is reported here is not a disagreement with me, it is a disagreement with the original author.

Where I DO express my own opinion I will make that very clear, and I will state what I do believe to be

truly self-evident, you are of course at liberty to disagree with that.

Who him?

What qualifies me to write this article? Good question, the correct answer could be none whatsoever

which puts me in the same group as nearly every commentator who has written an article interpreting

the original paper.

I am an academically qualified engineer with over 30 years’ professional experience. I have been

working in environmental development / renewable energy for the last seven years in poorest parts of

Asia, and I characterize myself as an Appropriate Technology Consultant. For the past three years I have

been engaged in the wacky world of biochar and currently involved in field trials in two different regions

of Thailand. I am not a climate scientist and have never claimed to be, but I do know my way around

scientific papers and have been evaluating results and disseminating information directly from them for

a number of years. This, at the very least, qualifies me better than every single politician or TV

presenter.

What’s to stop you reading a scientific paper directly?

Nothing at all.

The internet will provide you with just about everything you need. It would be handy to have a friend

who has access to an academic database so you will avoid having to pay for any academic papers4. If you

do this you have done far more research than just about everybody outside of science in this debate. I

would highly recommend anyone to have a go - the more knowledgeable people we have in this debate

the better.

Skeptic and denier

At this point I should importantly distinguish between a skeptic and a denier. A skeptic is “a person

who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual”5 whereas a denier is “a

person who refuses to recognize or acknowledge any reasoned argument’6.

Being skeptical is an essential part of the human condition, question everything, weigh up the pros and

cons and form your own opinion. A denier on the other hand, will stone wall and will not accept any

argument no matter how many times it is proved to be the case.

All scientists are skeptics, it is an essential part of the raison d’etre. Skeptics are very important to the

scientific process in the same way that opposition parties are an essential part of modern democracy.

They challenge you to be the best you can be, to be rigorous in your methodology and make sure that

your argument is water tight.

I would invite any climate change skeptic to challenge anything I have said in this article. YOU can look

this up.

I would also encourage climate change advocates to follow the same procedure, do not blindly accept

facts as they are presented you. Question the author’s credibility, particularly what is their motivation

and their relative expertise of the subject they are making assertions about. Question Everything!



Issue 1: 25/09/16

Pa

ge3

The basics: How science is done

Science and scientific methodology follows a pretty well-defined set of rules7. This has been developed,

refined and fought over for over a millennia. Its history going back arguably to Ibn al-Haytham8 a 10th

century scholar of ancient from Persia (in modern day Iraq). In the first few centuries there was little

discipline in scientific methodology and more or less relied on the integrity and competence of the

individual. By the time of Christiaan Huygens, Robert Hooke, Isaac Newton and the like were around in

the 17th Century, things had changed. Science was more complex, there were a lot more scientists

(scholars as they would have been known then) and therefore more disagreement. In order for their

scientific discoveries could be verified, a specific scientific methodology had to be agreed on. Since then

it has been developed into the fairly rigorous system that we use today.

Scientific investigations are very specific pieces of work. A hypotheses is proposed, an experiment is

designed and then, experiments conducted or measurements taken. On completion of the experiment

the data analyzed and conclusions drawn. The results are then written up and presented in a formal

paper. There is little left for open interpretation.

The next bit is real important, the paper is now published in relative journals and invited for peer review.

That is, scientists working in the same or similar field will test the hypotheses using the same

methodology as described in the paper. If they disagree then further research is needed to see where

the error lies. If the results are the same (or similar but verified) then the hypothesis is notionally

confirmed. The more reviews and testing the greater the credibility of the hypothesis and methodology

becomes.

At some point in this process, the scientific evidence becomes so strong it is accepted as scientific fact.

This is very important process as quite often what may seem very significant breakthrough is science,

such as the discovery of cold fusion9, extra-terrestrial signals10 or human cloning11 and are always picked

up at this stage. The fault can be either attributed to poor science or just a blatant deception. Science is

inherently imperfect, every scientist will tell you that, the standardized methodology tries to eliminate

errors and rouge/ pseudo-science as much as possible, every step from experimental design to methods

of observations is as rigorous as possible. But can never be 100% water tight.

How we perceive science

For the average Joe Blow all science it is almost exclusively presented through the spectrum of the

media. Even if you are an avid reader as publications such as Science and New Scientist, you are still

reading someone else’s perspective. The further we move down the spectrum towards the mainstream

media, the further we move away from the actual science. You are now relying on someone else’s

interpretation of someone else’s interpretation. This can be further exacerbated by the main stream

media’s commendable, but often poorly presented, requirement for balance. This often gives the

impression that the scientific community is divided 50:50 on a particular issue, which in many cases can

be deceptive. We are also subject to a variety of presentation styles, which does not particularly suit the

science community.

Professor Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society (UK) eloquently illustrates this in the excellent BBC

documentary “Science Under attack” 12. Scientists are generally not the most media savvy individuals in

an increasingly soundbite world. Also, scientists by nature would tend to be the most strident critic of

their own work, to ensure that there assertions are as accurate as possible, whereas their non-scientific

opponents would be more polished in their presentation and generic in their arguments.

The global warming science and debate

Let’s not underestimate this, - climate science and global ecological systems are VERY complex. To

aggregate a global historical picture would be impossible to do from one research area of research



Issue 1: 25/09/16

Pa

ge4

alone. The science of global warming has been a consolidation of a profusion of climate science and life

sciences glaciologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, limnologists, geologists and cosmologists to

name but a few. So climate change science and the climate change debate is a conglomeration of

numerous scientific endeavors, with a wide range of disciplines.

The skeptic’s argument “Give me one example of a scientific study where climate change is directly

linked to human activity” is oxymoronic and can never happen.

The idea that increasing levels of CO2 could be effecting the climate has been around since the late 19th

century, however, it was the ground breaking work of David Charles Keeling’s with the publication of

‘The Concentration of Isotopic Abundances of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere’ (CD Keeling, 1960)13

which first quantified the “Greenhouse effect”. Since then, there have been an increasing number of

studies observing the same effects and as you would expect a number which disagreeing with this

observation. Continued research by scientists from a multitude of disciplines continued to support the

hypothesis until 1988 when the UNIPCC14 was created which has formalized the science global climate

change debate.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (UN IPCC) is the global focal point of

climate change science and discussion.

The UN IPCC is an inherently flawed origination; anybody who has had any dealings with the UN will

attest to what an administratively heavy, politically polarized and overly bureaucratic organization it is.

There are no doubt that there are many good and true people in the organization who are attempting to

make the world a better place, but it is hamstrung and global politics, departmental infighting and

unsuitability of many of the people in senior political and administrative positions. This having been said,

it is the global clearing house for the debate and exchange of science in climatology and brings together

thousands of key players directly involved in climate and earth and life sciences.

So that brings us to the source of the “97% scientific consensus” figure

The figure has been lifted directly from the abstract from a report published in 2013:

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

(Cook et al 2013)1 the lead author being Dr. John Cook with other contributors

Note: In Harvard notation this would often be referenced as (Cook et al 2013) giving the name of the

lead author and ‘et al’ the truncation of the latin phrase ‘et alia’ for ‘and others’

Abstract:

“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 and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing

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

The ISI15 search generated 12 465 papers. Eliminating papers that were not peer-reviewed (186), not

climate-related (288) or without an abstract (47) reduced the analysis to 11,944 papers written by

29,083 authors and published in 1,980 journals”.

John Cook: Who him?

At the time of writing was completing a PhD in cognitive psychology, researching how people think

about climate change. (March 2016) John Cook is the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global

Change Institute at The University of Queensland.



Issue 1: 25/09/16

Pa

ge5

The report is eight page document which is a meta-analyses, that is the collation of data from other

scientific studies. It does not have any data directly relating to climate studies only the methodology and

statistics tools that were used. The original documents are not referenced in the paper.

Okay; a skeptic would make the following observations conclusions

• Meta study this is a further step away from the real climate science and is very much an

interpretation of the abstract.

• John cook is not a climate scientist and works for a global change institute and is therefore

inherently biased

• The methodology is full of holes and statistical models are open to different interpretations.

• The result is very much related to the interpretation of the abstract

• Inconsistencies with science, i.e. measuring changes and only speculating on the causes.

• Is there inconstant expertise cross over i.e. contributing of reviewing a paper which is

completely out their sphere of expertise i.e. is an oceanographer review a paper by a glaciologist

All valid arguments and many skeptics have questioned the validity of the 97% figure. However it is not

common knowledge that there has been more than one meta-analysis.

Source Science Skeptik16

Working on the very sound principle, the more data that is gathered the more accurate the model is. I

have constructed the following table:

Report Applied respondents Total AGW advocates

Oreskes 200417 928 928 928

Doran 200918 10257 3146 3051

Andregg 201019 1372 1372 1330

Cook 20131 11944 3894 3752

Verheggen 201420 6000 1868 1681

Stenhouse 201421 7,062 1854 1724

Carlton 201522 1868 698 677

Total 39431 13760 13143



Issue 1: 25/09/16

Pa

ge6

Concluding consensus = 95.5%

Note: This is a very crude calculation and the original papers vary a lot in scope and methodology. The

data can be calculated many different ways, but even taking the harshest negative model, the results

are fairly conclusive and it does however give a good indication of the strength of the hypothesis.

Politics

What is interesting is that the climate change debate does seem to have very distinct lines across the

political spectrum. This of course is not 100% true but generally the more right wing tends to be on the

skeptical/denial end of the spectrum whilst advocates will tend to be on the left.

Without attempting to drift into the murky waters of politics, it does seem strange that the acceptance

of anthropogenic climate change and skepticism of the same, do seem to run directly parallel with

political views. The following observation is made in ‘meteorologists’ views about global warming’

“Most Americans know very little about the science of global warming (Leiserowitz et al. 2010)—but

rather by differences in political ideology and deeper underlying values (Kahan et al, 2011). Many

conservatives see the solutions proposed to mitigate global warming as being more harmful than global

warming itself due to their effect on the economy (McCright and Dunlap 2011). Liberals, on the other

hand, are more likely to accept the dominant scientific view, as they see the proposed responses to

global warming as strengthening activities they value—namely protection of the environment and

regulation of industrial harm” 21

This would concur that the lines would be drawn along compatible socio economical groups - liberals

tend to be environmentally conscious whereas conservatives tend to be economy and business

centered. We see the same picture repeated time and time again, with pollution issues, large

infrastructure building projects issues and deforestation issues. I think the issue has now moved so

much out of the arena of science that it is now squarely in the commerce vs ecology debate and the

natural lines of allegiances have been followed in accordance. In the US the ‘Watermelon label’ is often

used for environmentalist by those generally of the conservative, generally meaning that green

environmentalists are really communists.

This conundrum exists probably better than anywhere else in my own country of Australia. Australia is

immensely resource rich and the primary industry of coal and mineral mining has made Australia one of

the most stable developed economies, linked with its huge area and relatively small population means

that Australia ranks as one of the highest countries in the world of GHG emissions per capita23. So in real

terms that means all Australians have a huge vested interest in all matters relating to carbon taxing and

environmental controls.

Also politicians are ‘fire fighters’ they can only realistically deal with the thing which is immediately in

front of them. Very few governments have and effective long term cross party strategies that cover core

social enterprises such as health and education, let alone one which will by definition adversely affect

the economy. “Climate change an issue which will be ongoing for the rest of the century, politics

addresses the issues for next week”

Manufacturing doubt

What is commonly known as the ‘product defense industry’ is very much the ‘black ops’ of corporate

strategies. For good reason, organizations and institutions would not want it publicly known that they

are engaged in the strategic ‘manufacturing of doubt’. It generally applies to the muddying tactics of

lobby groups, industries and sometimes individual representatives. The produce defense industry has its



Issue 1: 25/09/16

Pa

ge7

roots back going back to the tobacco industry’s attempts to blur the scientific consensus of the dangers

of smoking, both direct and passive, and now today is a multimillion dollar industry in its own right.

It is hard to dispute that the main protagonists employing these tactics are usually very large, very

powerful multinationals with a lot of vested interest and very deep pockets and or lobby groups PR

companies and sympathetic media who represent them.

The modus operandi of these institutions is not to dispute the science, but to muddy the waters of the

scientific research by throwing extraneous issues which will either delay the inevitable. This is very much

what we are seeing in the climate change debate 24

Almost exclusively the conclusion is “More research needed”

How is manufacturing doubt done?

Here’s a really good example, pulled directly from internet - the reason I use it is because at the time of

writing, if you type in “97% climate scientists” into google, this is the very first result.

“97% of Climate Scientists Agree' is 100% Wrong”25

Which appeared in Forbes.com the online version of the business magazine appearing on 6th

January 2015. By Alex Epstein

Who He?

Alex Epstein is an American author, energy theorist and industrial policy pundit. He is the founder and

President of the Center for Industrial Progress, a for-profit think tank located in Laguna Hills, California,

and a former fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute. Epstein is also the New York Times bestselling author of

The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, which champions the use of fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas.

Epstein is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute26

We will start with the title given poetic license aside calling any scientific paper 100% wrong is not

technically possible and clearly he is a fossil fuel use advocate. This is a clever use of semantics

suggesting that if the reported figure is 97% and it transpires that it is 96% (or even 98%) for that

matter, the whole study is inaccurate.

I will attempt to dissect his opinion in his piece as rationally as I can and of course his opinion is just as

valid as mine

““97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are

you to challenge them? The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual–and you don’t go by

polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.”

Incorrect - a meta-analysis is not a poll and the original data is from the abstracts of scientific papers,

not a poll of polls.

“What you’ll find is that people don’t want to define what 97% agree on–because there is nothing

remotely in the literature saying 97% agree we should ban most fossil fuel use.”

None of the studies suggests we should ban fossil fuels, the data was taking directly from abstracts

relating to specific studies, none were questioning the use of fossil fuel also that was never the intended

output from the study, this is a straw man argument.

“The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to

essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.”

A direct assumption that a 0.8 degree rise is insignificant, last statement is incorrect.



Issue 1: 25/09/16

Pa

ge8

Also, in the article, there are a list of four scientists who dispute Cooks’ interpretation of their paper

Undoubtable there are more, the methodology is by no means bullet proof and a skeptic can pick a

number of significant holes in it. However, in total there are over 4000 lead authors, I make that 0.1 %,

to call foul on these sort of numbers is stretching credibility. How many more would it take to

significantly shift this consensus?

Remember the point is not to attack the science directly but to make the whole process murky, throw in

spurious arguments, attach the scientists’ motivation such as who is funding them (ironic considering

that majority of the most militant opponents are funded by the fossil fuel industry) and re interpreting

results.

I started my research by just plugging in “97% of scientist hoax” into google and working through the

results one by one. As one would suspect it quickly became a who’s who of climate change deniers.

What was really interesting was following the trail back all the sources which remarkably can be traced

back to only a handful of institutions and individuals. The financial support of which support would

almost certainly be tracked to ‘the usual suspects’. It is also clear that the, also the AGW refuting

scientists tend to be the most vocal, they certainly seem to attract more media attention despite

protestations that the media is biased against them. This was happening on such a regular basis that it

became a little unnerving and the specter of ‘conspiracy’ alarm bells started ringing. However

‘conspiracy’ would suggest some sort or elaborate cover up and this is clearly not the case as it is

actually very easy to uncover, I would highly recommend having a go.

I have also discovered the ‘science of doubt’ in my own field of endeavor. Biochar is the manufacture of

charcoal (almost 100% black carbon (BC)) which can be used as an agricultural amendment. I have spent

the last four years in discussion with agronomists, pedologists, crop specialist, fertilizer specialists and

farmers’. Overwhelmingly (nearly 100%) of consensus of opinion is that the use of biochar as an

agricultural amendment is a good thing. However, as part of my biochar research, it would only be

correct if I followed the due process and to gauge what the general scientific consensus was.

Admittedly, there are numerous well recognized technical, logistical and economic issues particularly

with the ’upstream’ elements (the making of biochar and its conversion to an agricultural friendly

substance) and indeed even with the ‘downstream’ practical application27. It is surprising however to

find that there are indeed numerous articles which warn of the dangers of biochar 28,29. Some of the

arguments, from respected scientists and commentators are quite bizarre but interestingly most of

them cite the same articles which are based on the critique of one ‘flawed’ study giving the appearance

of consensus which is very misleading. The authors have completely ignored the multitude of studies

which have been positive about the use of biochar.

Is this a tactic used by both sides?

In the interests of balance it could be argued that both sides of the climate debate are guilty of this

strategy.

That is an examination of media outlets that are climate change advocates, that has taken a contrary

scientists view and instead of dissecting and argue the science directly has attacked the scientist and

their motivations.

This is not as straight forward as it may sound as what is apparent is the skeptic’s side does have some

real larger than life characters and the division between contradicting the science or the scientist

becomes very grey. So in the interests of being as fair as I possibly can I have chosen three examples

which I think represents the extremes of these terms of reference and have given the fairest assessment

I can.



Issue 1: 25/09/16

Pa

ge9

Example 1: Lord Monkton30

Lord Monkton, is not a scientist, he is a one man whirlwind of controversy (not just on climate change).

He adds nothing to the scientific debate on climate change. There is a fascinating and hilarious ‘Lord

Monkton’ rap sheet on science blog (https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/). It

would be unfair and cheap to liken Lord Monkton to all climate change skeptics in the same way asking

Christians to defend the Westboro Baptist church.

Example 2: Dr. Fred Singer31

Dr. Fred Singer, is a scientist and it would be fair to say is probably the highest profile climate change

opponent there is. He is also something of a paradox as he has in his many publications berated climate

deniers for being deniers and not skeptics and has also published many scientific articles directly taking

on the science of climate change. However, many, if not all of his publications, have been hotly refuted

by recognized climate scientists. He also has a history of vocal skepticism on a number of other issues

the dangers of passive smoking, acid rain and ozone depletion. Although it could not be said that he is

exclusively funded by the oil industry directly, the institutions he has represented and undertaken work

for receive donations for the oil industry and petroleum institutions. This all makes Dr. Fred Singer a

polarizing character where both his science and his character are routinely discredited by both scientists

and the media.

Example 3: Dr. Roy Spencer32

Dr. Roy Spencer, is a scientist he is a former NASA and is known for his satellite-based temperature

monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award. He

has been a vocal opponent of AGW and has published numerous works on the subject. His science has

been roundly criticized by his contemporaries for incorrect use of data. To be fair to Dr. Spencer and his

opponents, they mainly have duked it out in the science arena mano e mano. The same is generally true

in the media where Dr. Spencer’s work has been rebutted scientifically. On the issue of attacking the

person not the science it has been alluded to that Dr. Spencer is a serial offender on this.

Conclusion

Even with the most neutral hat I can find, evidence does really stack up on one side - the more research

that you do the more and more this becomes self-evident. The AGW opponents seem to be more willing

to employ questionable tactics, are much much more vocal and play fast and loose with facts. Whilst

AGW advocates are in some instances guilty of this, the overwhelming source of visceral publications

belong to the skeptics / deniers side.



Issue 1: 25/09/16

Pa

ge1

0

Hysterical doom mongers and the need for balance

Having got this far, in the interests of balance it would only be fair that I should apply the same metric to

the advocate side as to their opponents. I therefore turned my attention to possible the two largest

advocate groups Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth International. Keeping out as far as I can of the

political arena, I wanted to find out how well their science stacks up.

It would be fair to agree that both organizations have metamorphosised from what once could be

considered as a bunch of crusties33 from genesis in the early seventies, to what is now a well-established

international environmental movements, with well-paid directors but still funded in the majority from

individual subscriptions. They certainly have generated a more professional approach being invited to

participate in public policy debate rather than effigy-burning protests (although this still does occur).

There is no doubt that both the organizations and its core membership represent the more militant end

of the environmental spectrum, so by default everything published would be automatically biased in

that direction, but that shouldn’t matter as we are only sticking to the facts. The science is either correct

or it isn’t. I followed the methodology of searching through the organizations websites for any links to

scientific document or papers and followed the trail back to the attributed to source.

Greenpeace have their own lab based at Exeter University in England. And there total output does

appear to be almost exclusively chemical analysis of possible pollutants. Of course they have their

research vessels which appear to cover everything from sampling arctic waters to direct action against

Japanese whaling ships. I would imagine that the crew of their fleet of ships do undertake collection of

environmental data, although if they do, I have been unable to discover any direct scientific papers

relating to climate change. As far as I understand, Friends of the Earth do not conduct any scientific

studies of their own but act merely as an advocacy group, compiling their own reports based on existing

scientific studies.

The first thing you notice from both organizations is that reports directly generated by them are real

‘table thumpers’ – a lot of data, a lot of reviews and generally a lack of hysteria around the reporting of

scientific facts and statistics.

Example 1: “Changing the system not the climate, at COP17 in Durban and beyond”34

Foei.org> resources> publications

As emissions soar to unprecedented levels reference International energy agency, this report then

references the UN 5th assessment 35

Example 2: Greenpeace

Example: ”What happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay in the Arctic”36

Greenpeace research labs > publications > What happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay in the Arctic>

referenced: CLIMATE CHANGE 2013 The Physical Science Basis37

There are also multiple sources who are a very critical of both organizations and specifically critical of

their funding, the salaries of chief executives and their involvement with government deals, shady

cooperate and political alliances. There is however very little that directly disputes their scientific

reports. It is also very interesting that further investigations into these critics many lead the trail back to

the ‘usual suspects’ in ‘manufacturing doubt’, some of which have very shady providence.



Issue 1: 25/09/16

Pa

ge1

1

OK let’s say we are all agreed AGW is happening what does the future hold.

“Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future” Neils Bohr38

Accepting that we now have a consensus amongst the majority of climate scientists that AGW is a fact,

the new fulcrum for debate to how much damage will there be and when will it happen? Currently this

does appear in particular the erroneous effect it can have on developed economies IF radical fossil fuel

emission reduction systems are introduced.

Does anyone know what exactly is going to happen? No, of course not the consensus of the UN & The

Royal Society in the UK and the National Academies of Science in the US are pretty dire and predicting a

global catastrophe on a Biblical scale unless immediate action is taken to cut our emissions. Contrarily,

there are some commentators and scientists on the skeptic’s side who suggest that increasing

temperatures and increasing levels of C02 will be beneficial39 (agronomics depend on C02 for the survival

and growth after all).

The UNIPCC much touted figure of limiting global warming to an increase of 2°C34 at which point it has

been calculated that the green effect will reach critical mass and therefore cannot be reversed. Of

course this figure has been the centre of heated debate between both scientists and policy makers. This

disagreement has been seized on by the skeptic’s community as an indication that not all scientists are

in agreement. This again is a straw man argument, is driving at 100 mph or 120 mph dangerous, the

answer is both, the correct course of action would be to slow down.

The advocates of little or no action suggest the weaning of fossil fuels is impractical and is certainly not

going to happen overnight. Of course this is true - the burning of fossil fuels is an integral part of the life

of nearly everybody on the planet and it cannot be switched off over night. Is this a good reason for no

action?

One thing for sure it will it the poorest nations hardest and this will always be the way. Many agricultural

based economies are increasingly marginal which I have witnessed this for myself in rice farms

throughout Thailand, however, other contributory factors other than climate change are causal. My

biggest concern is that we are currently seeing huge migration issues in Europe, many are already

declaring it a humanitarian crises due to a number of culminating factors from war, persecution to

economic pressures. If you start adding potential famine into the mix where do you go from there?

Conclusions

• The earth is warming, there appears to be no one in disagreement with this - even the most

hardened skeptics agree. There are arguments which propose that both temperatures and C02

levels were higher in the past: this is true due to the world being much warmer1000 years ago

(Medieval warm period) and the world underwent a “little ice age” about 500 years ago.

However the rate of change in the latter half of the 20th century is unprecedented, the change is

much quicker and there are no related geological or cosmological effects.

• The overwhelming consensus is that anthropogenic GHG is a significant contributor to this rapid

change. There is a small number of climate scientists who disagree and some of these are

genuine, their research indicating that anthropogenic global warming is either a small

percentage of the overall picture, or not happening at all. There is also a small number, who are

generally the most vocal who are motivated by nonscientific reasons. It is true that the

opponents are a very much the minority.



Issue 1: 25/09/16

Pa

ge1

2

• There is enormous disagreement and always will be on the testing methodology of just about all

of the science of the meta-analysis but that’s what scientists do, but generally they are all in

agreement. Again the percentages are conclusive by arguing finer points of data – in doing this

we are only re arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

• There is disagreement amongst the global warming advocates scientists on how much GHG is

natural and how much is manmade and more importantly what the effect will be. Just how

serious is it and how quickly will it happen.

• It would be fair to say that those on the most militant end of the climate change debate are

accused of being alarmist calling for immediate global action at the other end of the spectrum

there is skeptical argument that it is impossible to predict the future trend to any great degree.

Can we afford to get this wrong?

• Product defense (Manufacturing doubt) is a REAL issue, almost exclusively generated on the

skeptic’s side.

• As we all know, immediate and dramatic action will affect all of us the lifestyles which we have

become accustomed to in the developed world will have to be severely rethought, the specter

of carbon taxing which nobody wants. The first time in our history we have to ratchet back our

lifestyle.

• Nobody wants more taxes. Carbon taxing systems are inherently unfair as those who ‘do the

right thing’ will be punished whereas the worst offenders will get off Scot-free.



Issue 1: 25/09/16

Pa

ge1

3

Summary

We are all beneficiaries of modern technology, affording us as lifestyle and a life expectancy that

even a century ago would have seemed unimaginable. And it’s not just the petrochemical industries

its other industries such as chemical companies who have developed synthetic fertilizers and

pesticides that have pushed the once common scourge famine to the history books. Unless you live

completely off grid you will be using up fossil fuels and products and services of GHG emitting

industries in every day of your life.

My own personal philosophy is that the human race is running at an unsustainable rate - if you do

not believe that, then really do need help. It is forecast that the world’s population will reach 11

billion40 by the end of this century, that’s another 3.5 billion mouths to feed, a 33% increase from

where we are now. Together with peak oil, fossil fuels do not renew and pollution, increased

mobility and at some point in the future, this has to be turned round. This point in time could be

argued in many different ways, some may even argue that the point of no return has already been

reached, you don’t need climate change as reason, although it would be a good argument that it

would be a good time to start. What is true is that the closer we get to this point the less options we

have. And voluntary changes will be taken out of our hands.



Issue 1: 25/09/16

Pa

ge1

4

References:

1. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature: cook et

al 2013

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

2. @barackobama

https://twitter.com/barackobama/status/335089477296988160

3. Australia’s One Nations senator Malcolm Roberts on ABC’s Weekly political debate panel show

with Prof. Brian cox

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2016/aug/16/i-brought-the-graph-brian-

cox-and-malcolm-roberts-debate-climate-change-on-qa-video

4. https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus

Scopus is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature: scientific

journals, books and conference proceedings. Many thanks to Dr. Wolfram Spreer Lecturer and

assistant dean for research and international affairs Chiang Mai University, Faculty of agriculture

Chiang Mai, Thailand. For allowing me access to Scopus database

5. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/skeptic

6. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/denier?s=t

7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Haytham

9. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

10. http://www-outreach.phy.cam.ac.uk/camphy/pulsars/pulsars4_1.htm

11. Scientist cries hoax as cult fails to provide clone proof – the guardian Tuesday 7 January 2003

08.53 GMT.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2003/jan/07/genetics.internationaleducationnews

12. Science under attack – BBC documentary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3JEaigwAbg

13. The Concentration of Isotopic Abundances of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere’ (CD Keeling,

1960)

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/publications/keeling_tellus_1960.pdf

14. UN IPCC History

https://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml

15. https://www.researchgate.net/post/ISI_and_Scopus_index2

16. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

17. The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change - Naomi Oreskes 2004

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686

18. The ‘Scientific Consensus on Climate Change’: Doran and Zimmerman Revisited

http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/commissioned-work/the-'scientigic-consensus-

on-climate-change'.pdf

19. Expert credibility in climate change: Andregg 2010

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf

20. Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming: Verheggen 2014

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501998e

21. Meteorologists’ views about global warming: Stenhouse 2014

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

22. The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists: Carlton 2015



Issue 1: 25/09/16

Pa

ge1

5

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025/meta

23. List of countries by GreenHouse gas emissions by capita

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita

24. Private Empire: Exxon Mobil and American power: Steve Coll

https://www.amazon.com/Private-Empire-ExxonMobil-American-

Power/dp/0143123548#reader_0143123548

25. '97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong: Alex Epstein

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-

wrong/#462e23327187

26. Alex Epstein (American writer)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Epstein_(American_writer)

27. One ton per rai concept note_ issue 1: Gordon Hirst

https://www.linkedin.com/in/gordon-hirst-16173946?trk=hp-identity-name (To be updated)

28. Biochar and its effects on plant productivity and nutrient cycling: a meta-analysis LORI A. B

IEDERMAN and W. STANLEY HARPOLE

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.12037/abstract

29. Beware the biochar initiative: Dr. Mae Wan Ho

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/bewareTheBiocharInitiative.php

30. http://www.lordmoncktonfoundation.com/

31. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

32. http://www.drroyspencer.com/

33. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusties

34. Changing the system not the climate at COP17 Durban and beyond

http://www.foei.org/resources/publications/publications-by-subject/climate-justice-energy-

publications/changing-the-system-not-the-climate-at-cop17-in-durban-and-beyond

35. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 200719.4.2.2 Scenario analysis and analysis of

stabilisation targets

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch19s19-4-2-2.html

36. What happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay in the arctic : Greenpeace

http://www.greenpeace.org/espana/Global/espana/2016/report/artico/ArticoEN-LR.pdf

37. CLIMATE CHANGE 2013 The Physical Science Basis

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

38. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/niels_bohr.html

39. Urban CO2 Dome (Phoenix, Arizona, USA) – Summary: Isda 2003

http://www.co2science.org/subject/u/summaries/phxurbanco2dome.php

40. World population prospects UN revision 2015

https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/publications/files/key_findings_wpp_2015.pdf

97% of climate scientists agree fact or fiction_issue 1_160925

Documents