Cooked Up Consensus: Lynas et al “Should Rather Be Classified As Propaganda, Bad Science”…”Truly Brazen”

Cooked up consensus…

Image: Copyright NoTricksZone

Martin Landvoigt writes on truth and consensus, climate models, the “fundamental and methodological difficulties” in climate science and how “hard, robust evidence is largely lacking” and so it’s “a matter of weakly substantiated opinions”.

Climate consensus and the climate

By Martin Landvoigt at Philosophieren für alle), Die kalte Sonne
(Text excerpt translated, subtitles added by P. Gosselin)

On this basis, the argument of the supposed consensus in climate science has been presented several times and repeatedly.

Numerous studies are supposed to prove this. In particular, the study: Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature – John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce – Published 15 May 2013.

Cook et al 2013 refuted

Arguably the most influential study used by U.S. presidents and other top-level decision makers as evidence for climate policy. Nevertheless, it can be considered refuted:

Detailed analysis shows that only 0.5% (65 of the 12,000 abstracts rated) suggest that humans are responsible for more than 50% of the global warming up to 2001, contrary to the alleged 97% consensus amongst scientists in the Cook et al study. Citing fear mongering and faulty methodology Friends of Science reject the study and President Obama’s tweet as careless incitement of a misinformed and frightened public, when in fact the sun is the main driver of climate change; not human activity or carbon dioxide (CO2).

Friends of Science

Many articles and studies refute their approach and results. Including:

The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up
Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong

Richard Tol in The Guardian

Of course, the method used is also astonishing: studies published on the subject of climate change were examined. Therein lies the assumption that scientists who publish on the topic are the only authoritative experts. This method, which probably provides a ‘biased’ selection, also only highly dubiously suggests expert opinion. Wouldn’t a representative survey among experts have been the appropriate method? So too among meteorologists and other scientists working in many different capacities around weather and climate. In fact, there are such studies that show the picture in a much more differentiated way, yet still largely ignored.

Now a new study has been published: Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature by Mark Lynas, Benjamin Z Houlton and Simon Perry – Published 19 October. Will this study provide better and more up-to-date knowledge than the many studies that preceded it? Unfortunately, it does not.

The abstract does not specify what the consensus is supposed to be:

We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Lynas et al.

Naturally this leaves room for all kinds of assumptions: Does that 99% consensus really claim a strong, predominant or complete influence of anthropogenic factors? Or is it merely that there is a – quantitatively unnamed – human influence on the climate? The latter can be assumed since there are masses of articles doubting a dominating influence of those factors on the climate.

However, since the mentioned 3000 articles probably do not have exactly that question as a subject of investigation (only generic keywords were searched), it cannot be assumed that valid quantifiable investigation results are available here. The analysis of the text confirms this:

3.1. Results of random sampling
Our random sample of 3000 papers revealed a total of 282 papers that were categorized as ’not climate-related‘. These false-positives occurred because, even though the climate keywords occurred in their title/abstracts, the published articles dealt with social science, education or research about people’s views on climate change rather than original scientific work.

Lynas et al.

Little surprised then we have the classification:

Explicit endorsement with quantification
Implicit endorsement
No position

Lynas et al.

Source: Lynas et al. 2021

Less than 1% of the papers quantify the human influence on the climate

In plain language: only 19 out of 3000 papers examined quantify the human influence on the climate. The rest obviously do not make any quantifiable statements. And even from those 19 papers it is not analyzed how the influence was quantified. A quantification of 50% anthropogenic contribution would already be considered as evidence of the so-called consensus here, but in other contexts would already mean also contradiction to the IPCC and the verdict of climate denier. Although the 2104 papers are relevant and describe climate change, they do not even make implicit statements about human causation. Why not actually? To speak here of a far-reaching consensus of over 99% is truly brazen!

Only consensus: man has some impact

Therefore, the claimed consensus could only be that man has some influence on the climate. But the investigation does not even come up with that, although it would be a trivial statement. A similar consensus will be that the color of the cloudless daytime sky is blue. But this is completely irrelevant and does not justify political decisions, especially if they drastically change the living conditions of people. Correspondingly wrong is then also the conclusion:

The tiny number of papers that have been published during our time period which disagree with this overwhelming scientific consensus have had no discernible impact, presumably because they do not provide any convincing evidence to refute the hypothesis that—in the words of IPCC AR5—’it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century‘ [12], and, most recently in IPCC AR6—’it is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land‘ [13].

Lynas et al.

How did it survive peer-review?

The entire paper had not even examined whether there was a consensus on “human influence being the dominant cause of the observed warming”. How could such wrong conclusions survive a peer review? This raises doubts about the value of peer review.

Nevertheless, it can be assumed that this study will continue to be used – without giving details – as proof of the scientific nature of climate protection policy. However, it is precisely this considerable effect that is probably intended and should rather be classified as propaganda and bad science.

12 responses to “Cooked Up Consensus: Lynas et al “Should Rather Be Classified As Propaganda, Bad Science”…”Truly Brazen””

  1. Cooked Up Consensus: Lynas et al “Should Rather Be Classified As Propaganda, Bad Science”…”Truly Brazen” – Watts Up With That?

    […] Reposted from the NoTricksZone […]

  2. Top UN Climate Official: World Conflict and Refugee Chaos if you Disobey – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort

    […] Cooked Up Consensus: Lynas et al “Should Rather Be Classified As Propaganda, Bad Science”…”T… […]

  3. Lynas et al Should Rather Be Classified As Propaganda, Bad ScienceTruly Brazen – Watts Up With That? – Adfero News

    […] Reposted from the NoTricksZone […]

  4. Cooked Up Consensus: Lynas et al “Should Rather Be Classified As Propaganda, Bad Science”…”Truly Brazen” |

    […] Reposted from the NoTricksZone […]

  5. Nick Schroeder

    Fact 1: Remove the Earth’s atmosphere or just the GreenHouse Gases and the Earth becomes much like the Moon, no water vapor or clouds, no ice or snow, no oceans, no vegetation, a 10% albedo not 30%, a barren rock ball hot^3 (400 K) on the lit side, cold^3 (100 K) on the dark. At our distance from the Sun space is hot not cold. That’s NOT what the Radiative GreenHouse Effect theory says.
    RGHE “288 K w – 255 K w/o = 33 C cooler ice ball”
    Nikolov “Airless Celestial Bodies”
    Kramm “Moon as analog for Earth”
    UCLA Diviner lunar mission data
    Int’l Space Station HVAC design for lit side of 250 F. (ISS web site)
    Astronaut MMU w/ AC and cool water tubing underwear. (Space Discovery Center)

    Fact 2: The GHGs require “extra” energy upwelling from a surface radiating as a black body.
    Trenberth atmospheric heat balance model (TFK_bams09.pdf ( and dozens of clones.

    Fact 3: Because of the non-radiative heat transfer processes of the contiguous participating atmospheric molecules the surface cannot upwell “extra” energy as a black body.
    As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
    For the experimental write up see:

    No RGHE, no GHG warming, no CAGW or mankind/CO2 driven climate change.

    Version 1.0 102621

    1. Andreas Jung

      it is not exactly the situaton of the moon without greenhouse gases, O2, Argon and NO2 would heaten up just by conduction and convection and therefore warm up the gas atmosphere. The heat taken from the ground by the rising gases into the atmosphere would lower the temperature of the surface, therefore infrared radiation of the black body would be lower. This is always the case when water evaporation and thermal lift processes (conduction of heat into adhesive air films, stripping off of those heated airfilms, convection) are cooling wet or dry surfaces. Conduction of heat into adhesive airfilms and thermal transport of heat into the atmosphere is often underestimated. Radiation and IR-Absorbers are not needed for this.

  6. Lynas et al “Should Rather Be Classified As Propaganda, Bad Science”…”Truly Brazen” – Watts Up With That? - Desi Creator

    […] Reposted from the NoTricksZone […]

  7. Harry Dale Huffman

    That’s what you get when you start with a dogmatic loyalty to “peer review” as the ONLY way to address how to determine the truth of a “scientific” issue. In fact, those of us who know how peer review works (as just so many “feudal lords” exercising their suppression of anything and everything that casts doubt, and even outright disproof, on their sacred beliefs) know peer reviewed literature is just that “feudal” system, and not just questionable, but criminal now. Lynas et al. are criminals, just as the entire political system, under the Insane Left, is criminal.

    It is too late for ANY rational discourse, because they are in power, through mass election fraud (i.e. criminality, which defines their every action), and they are interested only in exercising their power. There can only be complete refusal to obey. We do not have legitimate authorities, in science as well as politics and the media. All of those not ready for that reality (roughly 40% of us, which puts the lie to any propaganda about “99% consensus”) are now part of the problem. You have to be able to see the insanity and criminality for what it is, if you want to stop it. And if you don’t want to stop it (if you’re in that 40%), you are the enemy of civilization itself, your own civilization.

  8. Tom Anderson

    Harry Dale Huffman. Yes.

    That nails the philosophy and aim of the new ruling class exactly, and it is a quintessentially collectivist (socialist) philosophy. Friedrich Hayek wrote that while power was the arch-evil to the great nineteenth-century individualist philosophers, to the strict collectivist (Marxist, Maoist, what-have-you), power is the goal.

    To realize it, collectivists must create a power over individual lives of a magnitude never before known – or necessary. Their success depends on completely achieving it. Hayek argued that a concentration of power in service to the socialist project not only transfers but increases it so greatly as to become almost a different kind of power. While economic power can be highly coercive in private hands, it is not exclusive or absolute enough to control anyone’s whole life. But as an instrument of centralized political power it imposes a degree of personal dependence little different, he said, from slavery.

  9. tom0mason

    Even a real 100% consensus among scientist would not make a scientific theory any better. It takes observations and measurements to make it so. Thus far the case for the warming of the planet’s atmosphere through human release of CO2 is unproven.
    True science requires no consensus. Requiring a consensus shows that true science is not being done. Verified (and relevant) experiments, observations and measurements are what is required, not a group self-deluded, pompous, egotistical types shouting CONSENSUS!

  10. Ben Vorlich

    It’s always been an “8 out of 10 cats prefer” claim. In that case the cat food maker had to add the rider “whose owner expressed a preference”. Advertising is more strict on claims than climate science. No real surprise really.

  11. dm

    Contrary to Lynas’ claim “… papers … which disagree with this overwhelming scientific consensus have had no discernible impact …” is the fact global warming, climate change, climate emergency … rank now, and for years, at the BOTTOM of issues worrying the public. So, papers disputing the consensus are more influential than alarmist papers.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy