41% of Climate Scientists Don’t Believe in Catastrophic Climate Change, Major New Poll Finds

For years, the promoters of the spurious ‘settled science’ narrative have claimed that there is a 97-99% consensus among scientists about humans causing climate change. The claim is meaningless since it fails to address differences in the extent of human involvement and how harmful the warming is thought to be. A recently published survey of top-level climate scientists found that just over five in 10 attributed the human contribution to recent climate change to be 75% or above. Only around four in 10 scientists believed that the frequency and severity of extreme weather events had increased significantly in recent years.

The above graph from the poll is the only realistic way to gauge scientific support for anthropogenic climate change. It is clear that there is not 99% support for humans causing all or most climate change. Of course, it is not a surprise that there is considerable support for the unproven anthropogenic hypothesis (92% believed that a majority of recent warming was due to humans), since sceptical science in this field does not generally attract money, prestige and coveted academic posts. Emeritus Professor Richard Lindzen recently called the current climate narrative “absurd”. Perhaps, he added, it was the trillions of dollars diverted to green projects and the relentless propaganda from grant-dependent academics and agenda-driven journalists that had persuaded people it is not absurd.

There is a vast amount of money pouring into academia designed to support the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change. The hope is to shore up the invented 99% ‘consensus’ backed up by helpful, unquestioning media commentators. But the new poll shows that even after 25 years of relentless propaganda, there is considerable debate over the subject in scientific circles. Over the last year, the Daily Sceptic has attempted to bring some of this debate to a wider audience.

The survey was conducted in September and October by the North American-based Fairleigh Dickinson University. Great care was taken to collect a representative sample of scientists with at least a bachelor’s degree in fields such as meteorology, climatology, physics, geology and hydrology. Nearly three in five (57%) were members of the American Meteorology Society. Many scientists with degrees in natural science and the social sciences were barred from the group. A full methodology of the poll can be viewed here.

Much of COP this year is talking about climate ‘reparations’ with ‘attribution’ models said to be able to blame single weather events on long-term human-caused changes in the climate. This pseudoscientific hocus-pocus can, it seems, even go back to the mid 18th century when James Watt started to ramp up the power of labour-saving steam engines. Over half the poll’s participants (below) thought that global climate change will have “significant harm” on living conditions for humans, but the rest varied from “slight harm” to “slight improvement” and “significant improvement”.

Regular readers will recall that we recently gave publicity to a paper from four leading Italian scientists who undertook a major review of historical climate trends and concluded that declaring a ‘climate emergency’ was not supported by the data. The post was widely distributed on social media and led to the usual huffy ‘fact checks’ and even calls for the work to be banned. Nevertheless, the poll shows clearly that the debate over whether individual weather events are getting worse due to human activity is raging across science.

This is a very interesting result. More poll participants thought the frequency of severe weather events had increased only “slightly”, than those who chose “increased significantly”. No change, meanwhile, attracted a 12% vote. Severe weather events were defined as hurricanes, extreme drought, wildfires, etc. A similar vote split can be seen concerning the severity of recent severe weather events. Of course, the ’highway to hell’ narrative at COP27 does not reflect this scientific split since the highly politicised gathering tends strongly towards the thermogeddon fantasy.

According to James Taylor, President of the poll sponsor and U.S. free market think-tank Heartland Institute, the survey “destroys the oft-repeated propaganda that 97% of the world’s scientists believe climate change is a serious problem requiring immediate action”. U.S. meteorologist Anthony Watts said the poll illustrates that there is less consensus on climate change and a broader scope of differing opinions that we are led to believe. “The results suggest that the draconian solutions such as Net Zero being pushed by the Left, even if they actually worked, are aimed at a non-problem,” he added.

H. Sterling Burnett from Heartland was intrigued that the poll showed older, more experienced scientists were more sceptical of climate disaster claims. “It seems, years of indoctrination have succeeded in brainwashing younger, less experienced climate scientists into believing, data to the contrary, that humans are causing a climate catastrophe,” he concluded.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

Subscribe
Notify of

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

20 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
FerdIII
3 years ago

Climate ‘$cience’ you mean. Or more accurately, Clima$e Theology. Only 41% of ‘$cientists’ don’t find it ridiculous that we ’cause the weather and climate’? Good gravy. The common sense philosophies and science of St Aquinas and the Scholastics rubbished for nominalism, and pagan worship of trace chemicals. $cience has regressed back to the days of the druids. Follow the Tri$$ions. Complex convection systems we don’t understand and we blame our 5% emission of a 0.04% rounding error trace chemical used to make oxygen. The Age of Stupid.

huxleypiggles
3 years ago
Reply to  FerdIII

“The Age of Stupid.”

The Age of Beyond Stupid.

Sontol
Sontol
3 years ago

Following on from Ferdlll, not a single respondent to this survey that claimed to know that human activities were having any effect whatsoever on the global climate (never mind a harmful one) deserves the title of scientist. There are far to many near infinitely complex factors involved in the ever-changing (geographically and over time) syndromes of worldwide temperatures and weather to come to any such sweeping causal conclusions. Furthermore if some sort of guesstimating exercise was still deemed worthwhile common sense indicates that humanity’s 5% annual contribution to a trace atmospheric gas (C02, measured in parts per million) could not possibly be the driver of the global climate (which of course ‘changes’ on a minute by minute and localised level). And as a final nail in the coffin of this whole ‘it’s all down to evil homo sapiens’ claim all the data sets that the ‘Climate Change’ pseudo-scientific community themselves accept as valid indicate the opposite: Atmospheric C02 levels have been increasing at a steady annual rate for the last 20 years (now at around 400ppm) http://www.climate.gov/media/13611 whilst mankind’s C02 output has been heavily accelerating (which shows how pointless the economically devastating Net Zero measures carried out in eg the… Read more »

JXB
JXB
3 years ago
Reply to  Sontol

As someone remarked, putting climate in front of scientist, is like putting witch in front of doctor.

Kone Wone
Kone Wone
3 years ago
Reply to  JXB

That’s brilliant; I’m going to remember that one!

Mybodymyfuckingchoice
3 years ago
Reply to  Sontol

I’m interested in the 5% being due to human activity, do you have a link/source please?

7941MHKB
7941MHKB
3 years ago
Reply to  Sontol

Excellent response. But don’t forget that the “global temperature data sets” that this nonsense is based upon have been tinkered with on an industrial scale, ‘adjusting’, ‘correcting’, ‘homogenising’ the collected data to make the past ‘colder’, to exaggerate such trivial warming as actually has been observed.

And also that observed temperature rises have been primarily at high latitudes, in winter and at night. So the denizens of Franz Joseph Land enjoy toasty minus 30 degree nights instead of chilly minus 50 degrees.

Where you see lying on an industrial scale, no scientist worth the name will venture.

huxleypiggles
3 years ago

Many thanks for publishing this.

varmint
3 years ago

It isn’t a black and white issue. It isn’t the case that there either is or there isn’t “climate change”. This all emanates from the United Nations and their IPCC which has a remit to find every possible human cause for any changes to climate but has no interest in any changes to climate not apparently caused by humans. It is politics. The political agenda comes first and then the search for all the supposed science to support that agenda comes next. It is “Official science”, and the alleged experts are “designated experts”.——-Some people are easily swayed by statements like “All scientists agree” etc. A lot of the public busy with work and family life have no time to investigate every issue, so they rely on what they think are “investigative journalists” to inform them. Sadly on this issue and many other social justice and highly politicised issues, “investigative journalists” have failed to inform and simply become activists. But if we are really talking about science then scepticism is the highest calling and blind faith the one unpardonable sin. So a special thanks to “The Dail Sceptic” for not participating in advocacy.

transmissionofflame
3 years ago
Reply to  varmint

The IPCC’s existence rather depends on Human Induced Climate Change being a definite thing and a problem, about which Something Must be Done. Somehow we need to stop appointing panels of “experts”, giving them funds and power, when they have a clear interest in fabricating problems when they don’t exist in order to puff themselves up and keep their sinecures. SAGE, anyone?

JXB
JXB
3 years ago
Reply to  varmint

There is no such thing as ‘climate stasis’, therefore there is no default condition for climate where it is at rest.

Therefore without a baseline, it is impossible to distinguish between natural effects and possible Human effects.

Baseline is a standard requirement in science. If you don’t know the start point, you can’t measure anything. If you don’t know what something should be, how can you tell whether what you observe is the natural state or a change and by how much?

RTSC
RTSC
3 years ago

And STILL the Biased Broadcasting Corp will insist that “the science is settled” and there is scientific consensus.

The old bat
3 years ago
Reply to  RTSC

My life has been a lot happier since I expunged all BBC news, current affairs and certain programmes from my life over two years ago. They are only one voice on the subject after all. Why on earth would anyone take seriously any person or organisation that brooks no discussion about a subject because ‘we are right, you are wrong, end of story’?

JXB
JXB
3 years ago

That leaves 59% who are mindless blobs.

I am not seeing the supposed climate change ‘happening now’.

There is no one climate. Climate anyway is a dynamic, chaotic, non-linear system. That means variable and unpredictable.

There are numerous climate zones around the World which are never still. It is simply impossible to make any co-ordinated study of all of them to measure the same simultaneous change in the same direction in all of them.

Any change in climate in one place, has no bearing on climate elsewhere.

Distilling climate – an averaging over long periods of multiple meteorological factors – into one factor, temperature, is meaningless. The temperature increase/decrease/average in one place has no bearing on anywhere else.

Global average temperature does not exist – the Earth doesn’t have a big thermometer sticking out the side where we can check its temperature.

transmissionofflame
3 years ago
Reply to  JXB

Global average temperature does not exist – the Earth doesn’t have a big thermometer sticking out the side where we can check its temperature.”

That had me laughing out loud. Brilliant.

RW
RW
3 years ago
Reply to  JXB

Global average temperature does exist because it can be calculated. But it’s no more meaninful than global average shoe size.

Lockdown Sceptic
3 years ago

No propaganda no climate change   Yellow Freedom Boards – next event

Monday 14th November 11am to 12pm 
Yellow Boards 
Junction A332 Kings Ride & 
Swinley Rd, Winkfield Row, 
Ascot SL5 8BP

Stand in the Park Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am – make friends & keep sane 

Wokingham 
Howard Palmer Gardens Sturges Rd RG40 2HD   

Bracknell  
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA

photo_2022-11-11_14-43-10.jpg
Kone Wone
Kone Wone
3 years ago

Those (real) scientists who follow the science do not find the money comes in the door; those (pseudo) scientists who follow the money have to let science fall out the window.
Unfortunately there’s a lot of the latter charlatans.

DevonBlueBoy
DevonBlueBoy
3 years ago

If they are actual, rather than pretend, scientists why is it only 41%?

Martin Frost
Martin Frost
3 years ago

Talk of Environmental armaggedon is part of a racket that has been going on for decades. The claims are becoming increasingly absurd but no one dare challenge the orthodoxy of “the science”. It is a secular cult with a vast network of well paid priests far larger than the Vatican in its heydey. People build entire careers on the premise that the end of the world is nigh. This congregation is mix of the cynical and the gullible who were brainwashed in the schools.