Climate alert: The 97% scientific consensus is a deceptive "marketing value"

Many proponents of environmental politics and eco-alarmist hide behind several reports that claim that 97% of scientists agree that human influence has played a key role in climate change. The consensus on AGW (anthropogenic global warming) and this exact figure stems in part from the 2013 study by John Cook, a climate activist who has been cited numerous times by world leaders.

The Cook report, which analyzed around a thousand scientific articles, ensures that 97% of scientists believe that humans have caused global warming. Another article, published before Cook's, also put the number at 97%, popularizing the figure in environmentalist discourses.

97% is "marketing"

However, several subsequent analyses of Cook's work and his methodology refute the popular figure of a 97% consensus, especially among the scientific community. According to Earl J. Ritchie, a retired energy executive and professor at the University of Houston, Cook's conclusion is flawed. Ritchie believes that the 97% valuation has become a "marketing value" of eco-alarmist campaigns.

"It sounds precise and says that only 3% disagree. By implication, that small number who disagree must be out of the mainstream: cranks, chronic naysayers, or shills of the fossil fuel industry. They are frequently described as a “tiny minority.” It’s not as easy to discount dissenters if the number is 10 or 15 percent," said the expert after he analyzed the famous data.

The problem with Cook's analysis is that the team that prepared the study often drew its conclusions from the articles analyzed to highlight whether or not the author blames humans for causing climate change. Cook created a category called "explicit support without quantification." The category is made up of articles in which the author, by Cook's admission, does not clarify whether 1%, 50% or 100% of global warming is caused by humans. In these cases, the author only recognizes that humans played a role. Cook also established a category called "implicit support," for articles that imply that humans may have caused global warming, but do not quantify it.

Scientists protest

According to Forbes, a group of authors who published articles that were then analyzed by Cook have protested against the conclusions that the climate activist's study drew from their work. Richard Tol, Craig Idso, Nir Shaviv and Nicola Scafetta were some of them.

Secondly, and as stated in Cook’s abstract, the analysis methodology divides the articles analyzed into several categories. However, even if those who do not have a clear and definitive position on the human impact on the environment are counted, Cook's study does not take them into account when calculating the 97% percentage. Specifically, 66.4% of the articles did not express conclusions about the AWG, and only 32.6% of the total did so in favor of the consensus.

A discredited study

Despite misconceptions, several politicians have cited Cook's conclusions in their speeches. President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State, John Kerry, are the two most famous examples. President Obama, despite warnings, has cited this 97% percentage.

Although Cook's work has been criticized, his study is still one of the most cited and often referenced when it comes to defending the climate crisis.