The Claimed Consensus in Climate Science: A Critical Examination

The Role of Consensus in Climate Change Discourse

The concept of a scientific consensus on climate change has been a focal point in public and academic discourse, often cited to underscore the urgency and legitimacy of addressing global warming. This consensus refers to the agreement among scientists that climate change is real, predominantly caused by human activities, and poses significant risks to the planet. While the consensus is frequently highlighted to support policy measures and societal action, its emergence, use, and implications warrant a critical examination. This article explores the origins of the consensus concept, its application in promoting bad science, and the methodological critiques that challenge its validity. Ultimately, science should be driven by continuous inquiry and debate rather than by consensus, which can stifle scientific progress.

The idea of a consensus on climate change began to take shape in the late 20th century as the evidence for global warming accumulated. Key reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and prominent studies highlighted the human impact on climate, leading to a perceived agreement among climate scientists. This consensus was increasingly used to galvanize public opinion and political action. The notion gained substantial traction with the publication of influential papers and statements by scientific bodies, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

The consensus on climate change has played a dual role. On one hand, it has been instrumental in driving policy initiatives aimed at mitigating climate change. By presenting an apparent unified front, scientists have effectively exaggerated the seriousness of climate issues to policymakers and the public, fostering initiatives like the Paris Agreement.

On the other hand, the reliance on consensus has sometimes led to the endorsement of flawed science. Historical examples, such as the consensus on the geocentric model of the universe or the now-discredited belief in eugenics, illustrate how consensus can perpetuate incorrect or harmful ideas. In the context of climate science, the emphasis on consensus may have suppressed dissenting views and critical examination of methodologies.

Several seminal papers have bolstered the perception of a scientific consensus on climate change. In her widely cited essay published in Science, Naomi Oreskes reviewed 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers and concluded that 75% supported the consensus view, while none explicitly refuted it. This study has been pivotal in reinforcing the consensus narrative. Similarly, a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Anderegg et al. analyzed the publication and citation records of climate researchers, finding that 97-98% of the most active researchers supported the consensus view on anthropogenic climate change. Another review by Cook et al. of over 11,000 scientific papers found that 97.1% of those expressing a position on anthropogenic global warming endorsed the consensus view. This paper has been extensively cited in both academic literature and public discourse.

However, the consensus narrative has raised several methodological concerns. Studies like Oreskes and Cook et al. suffer from selection bias, as they only include papers that explicitly state a position on climate change, potentially excluding neutral or dissenting papers. Notice how the consensus arguments fall apart when including all papers.