Discussion > Refuting the 97%
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
Well, you would expect me to wade into this one!
In a Select Committee hearing or broadcast interview concerned with some aspect of policy on energy or climate other than the 97% itself, the figure is only going to crop up incidentally. Therefore, the attack on the 97% figure must be framed as an attack on the warmist position at issue and must be very brief. At most "That 97% is a gross distortion - actually only 75 out of a total of 12,000 asked agreed that humans have caused climate change, and ..... " . Note that only one or two seconds is required.
Maybe that will divert the discussion to the figure itself - which would be good - in which case there can be further revelations about the actual numbers or the sort of questions that Richard Drake proposes and if opportunity arises, about institutional bias and the dependence of jobs on funding and the like. Maybe it won't, in which case the accusation that the 97% is a distortion should be tossed back into what follows - again and again - in the same succinct sort of way.
But it should never be allowed to pass unchallenged. It's worth that two seconds and objections to it should be a routine feature of every discussion in which it is advanced in support of a warmist cause.
(Similarly bias and the IPCC, carbon good for plants and so on.)
Ecclesiastical Uncle
Devil's advocate. There is the alternative line, which is to ignore it completely whenever it is said.
One of the behaviours that I especially cringe at is never letting a point go, no matter how tactical it might be to do so. I cringe at it because I'm guilty of it myself. The main problem with the 97% figure is not that it is inaccurate - it's that it's a fallacious argument. Argument from authority. The actual figure doesn't matter. Getting bogged down in the details of where the actual figure comes from distracts from this point, and can make the arguer look a bit daft, to be honest.
Part of our problem is an image problem. We've been painted (unfairly) with the mad brush. Arguing stupidly about the provenance of the 97% figure, no matter how justifiably, distracts and risks making you look like an obsessive.
We've lost the 97% battle, folks. it's ingrained in popular mythology. We need to stop fighting that fight.
The best thing you can say to a 97% argument now is to historicise it. Yes, 97% of scientists believed that THEN, but now things have changed. We have a flat lining of temperature, all the models failed to predict it. The 97% is irrelevant NOW.
TheBigYinJames
Keep it simple
- "that 97% survey was debunked years ago"
- "It was from cherrypicking only 79 scientists"
(and add "The whole idea is just the fallacy appeal to authority, even if someone does PROPER survey the opinions of scientists, It's proven VALIDATED science that counts, above opinion")
stewgreen
BigYin
I don't think you can simply let it go but Uncle is right; it has to be a 2-second soundbite to refute it.
"It's irrelevant because it's simply not true" would be a quick response if required. After that refuse to get drawn into a discussion.
"Yes, I'm sure you would like to concentrate on this meaningless figure and distract everyone's attention from how threadbare your real argument is. Why don't we concentrate on the IPCC report, which you people are always claiming to be the last word on the science and which appears to be undermining your whole argument about extreme weather?"
Second sentence will need to address the thrust of the argument that you're involved in. Extreme weather appears to be the current one.
You can also get offensive and raise the question of eco-activists who go round the country pretending to be "ordinary people" when they are nothing of the sort , "like your Ms Rothery who spends her summers at protest camps like Balcombe and then turns up on the BBC pretending she is local to Manchester or perhaps Gainsborough and then turns out (apparently) to live in Blackpool."
Or, as I pointed out this morning on Unthreaded, "I see you little pals in Greenpeace are screaming foul because the government is 'bribing' councils to allow fracking. Nothing about the fact that your pals have had virtually unlimited access to the DECC for the last five years or your bullying tactics designed to make sure they didn't allow fracking."
There is no need for the rebuttals to be relevant. Why should they be? Theirs aren't half the time.
Mike Jackson
Personally, I like "that 97% was debunked years ago".
My problem with arguing with it is that people believe it. Politicians use it, the BBC use it. To suggest it was wrong is to invoke the scary concept of conspiracy, which most people instinctively shy away from.
TheBigYinJames
Given that there are around 10000 publishing climate scientists, to formally "refute" the 97% you need about 301 to share your opinion (whatever that might - defining it would I suspect be one of the biggest challenges). So lets see how that works:
Green: 97% of climate scientists agree
Lilley: that is untrue, the figure is at most 96.9%
Public: Wan*er!
So clearly you need to do better than that. Lets' say you liked the nitpicking of this blog's favourite economist and think the figure is closer to 96% (400 dissenting scientists).
Green: 97% of climate scientists agree
Lilley: that is untrue, the figure is at most 96%
Public: Wan*er!
Clearly you need something better. Would 1000 dissenters do it?
Green: 97% of climate scientists agree
Lilley: that is untrue, the figure is at most 90%
Public: Only one in ten supports Lilley? He's still a wan*er!
And that is assuming you can find your 300, 400 or 1000. Give it a try! My guess is you cannot and you have to resort to pretending they are hiding their views because they are intimidated, scared of losing their funding etc. That brings you back to your roots in conspiracy theory.
Green: 97% of climate scientists agree
Lilley: that is untrue, there are thousands of climate scientists who can't reveal their real views...
Public: Wan*er!
Chandra
Stand back, guys. I'm going to agree with Chandra.
The beauty of the three 97% claims is that there are enough supporters to make any attempt at detailed rebuttal make you look silly, precisely as Chandra has just pointed out.
If you remember ZDB simply regurgitated the Doran (and Anderegg) figure every time we pointed her at Doran's own paper which did a better job of debunking it then anyone could hope for. She just ignored what we said and repeated the untruth.
Cook's 97% is even more dishonest but what he has done is so technical that I have trouble getting it straight in my mind and I'm rumoured to be reasonably bright.
Where I do disagree, Chandra, and I hope you're honest enough to admit it, is that the 97% has been pushed and pushed hard by those in the "community" who know that the data it is based on (each time) are either inaccurate, manipulated or seriously cherry-picked. It's Goebbels' "big lie" in operation. It sounds "sciencey"; it's plausible; it's snappy. The point is it's irrelevant; if the science is right it doesn't matter if only 1% believe it; if it's wrong it doesn't matter if 100% believe it.
BigYin
I think the difference between you and me is one of nuance. But I think my version is more dismissive - wave of the hand stuff. To my mind you would be in danger of inviting the comeback of "oh, and when was that then?" The object of the exercise is to get the opponents on the back foot and keep them there.
Mike Jackson
An apparent difficulty is that it’s unclear what the alleged 97% is supposed to be in agreement about. (I say “apparent" because I don’t think it’s a difficulty at all – see below.)
Consider some propositions:
(1) Global temperature has increased.
(2) Mankind contributed to that increase.
(3) Mankind was the main cause of that increase.
(4) If mankind doesn’t stop the activities that were the main cause of the increase, there will be dangerous consequences.
(5) If mankind doesn’t stop the activities that were the main cause of the increase, there will be catastrophic consequences.
(Some commentators here might offer variations of or additions to the above – none, I suggest, could affect my conclusion.)
The investigation I carried out prior to my recent submission (see in particular section 3) to the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee’s inquiry concerning the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Review found that there is no useful evidence that 97% (or some other large percentage) of “scientists” (whatever that means in this context) agree to any of the above propositions.
So, Richard, if you want a punchy response, here’s one: “there is no evidence supporting your 97% claim”.
A footnote. The reason there’s no evidence is that no one has conducted a worldwide, properly constructed and correctly implemented opinion survey of appropriate scientists. Based on such evidence as exists (not much), my personal guess would be that, if it were, it would find that a substantial majority (perhaps around 97%) would accept proposition (1) and probably (although here I’m rather less certain) proposition (2). But I consider it unlikely that the numbers accepting propositions (3), (4) and (5) would be especially large.
Robin Guenier
I'm quite happy for this 97% to be trotted out. Sure, some people will believe it. And some will continue believing it, whatever happens. Others won't. This following is not a complete list.
First off, it purports to be a survey of opinion. Most people from the real world know that few questions of importance ever achieve such a level of agreement. As I sometimes point out, a politician who polls 97% is probably called Saddam Hussein. That in itself should be cause for suspicion, even to those who are not familiar with the history of those who did this "research".
Next, when you stop and ask 97% of WHO agree with WHAT assertion?, you find that the definitions are conveniently vague enough to get the desired answers. Even prominent blog sceptics have said that they themselves fall within these loose definitions. Then, so what? If the numbers were 51% to 49% would that make anything more true or less false? No. It's nothing to do with science or scientists.
You don't need to be a lawyer to see that clearly the questions reveal nothing useful. They were designed to confuse, not enlighten.
People (on this blog and elsewhere) corresponding with the authors and the editor have requested ALL the necessary data to make their own checks, and have been stonewalled.
In what reputable branch of the sciences is it OK for the authors to include the opinions of themselves and their acolytes as part of the data-set being examined? It's a joke, right? If a big-pharma executive said his product worked because the clinical trials, which they won't fully release, were true. If he said he himself, and his family, and his dog, took part in those trials, would you need to see a doctor for uncontrollable laughter? The product would be pulled from the shelves, the adverts pulled from the media, and the executive would be facing prison.
You don't need to believe that the authors are either irredeemably incompetent propagandists or simply barefaced liars to consign their last piece of "research" to the circular file. In the long run, that 97% will bite them, and a few others too.
michaelhart
michaelhart: "I'm quite happy for this 97% to be trotted out."
Well I'm not. It's being used as a weapon - and an effective one - to silence dissent. It needs to be stopped. And, as I demonstrate above (and have experienced in practice), it quite easy to do so.
Let's face it. And destroy it.
Robin Guenier
to me it's clear as soon as someone shouts that 97% they don't know anything about climate science or they are a deceiver.
Otherwise they would know the figure is uncredible.
The matter is to get that over to the innocent and naive public
stewgreen
Richard and TBY,
I don't understand the dejected nature of the response. The '97%' is based on three papers: one Doran and Zimmerman, two Anderegg and three Cook. None of them demonstrate a '97% agreement among scientists'. This is the truth of the matter, as far as any of us can tell. Just say it. If you make arguments or communicative gestures that do not carry the known truth behind it, you're setting up yourself for a fall, if not now sometime later.
Look at direct surveys. That's always the best method, and the only method of doing it. Bray and von Storch, Annan and the more recent AMS survey show a heterogeneity of opinion among scientists and weatherfolk.
Look at what Andrew Neil did on the BBC interview with Ed Davey: tell him straight and front, that the Cook 97% literature survey does not support whatever X you're trying to sell.
shub
shub:
Richard and TBY,
I don't understand the dejected nature of the response.
At no point in the making of this thread was I dejected :)
Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I agree with Robin that the 97% needs to be stopped rather than tolerated or ignored. I need to look back at how Andrew Neil handled X where X was something Ed Davey was trying to sell. I still think applying the 97% to one of the failed prediction stories takes it from abstract to concrete and that this would make some otherwise smart people that have quoted the percentage to me in the last two years really sit up. But the thread belongs to all BH denizens of all opinions. I may not have too much time to add much this week.
Richard Drake
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
IMHO, contributions by Richard Black, Robin Guenier and Michael Hart address a situation where the 97% is the issue under discussion and I do not pretend to know enough about the minutiae of what's gone on to comment. That is for the cognoscenti.
As readers will have seen, my concern has been lack of objection when the warmist casually drops the figure into a discussion. The minimum effect of an objection will merely be to establish the fact that we skeptics object, and that is far better than mute acquiescence. A more substantial effect might be to divert the discussion on to the figure itself which would greatly expand the time available to deploy the arguments so ably expoundable by the cognoscenti here.
Now Chandra.
Firstly, an ad-hom, and very much IMveryHO. By using the name Chandra whether assumed or not, the writer claims Indian origin or allegiance. India seems to be an unfortunate part of the world much bedeviled by poverty. Mostly this is because it is too hot, not something you can alter (even if you believe in CAGW!), and the temptation to lie down and wait for a coconut (or whatever) to fall from the tree or for a rich man to discard uneaten food must be overwhelming. Whether or not argumentation has developed as a means of improving this waiting experience, it is clear that it has become a very well developed Indian cultural trait as Chandra habitually demonstrates in spades. Very characteristic!
And a consequential word of counsel to bloggers here. The main purpose of 'Chandra's contributions is successful exercise of the art of argumentation, which plainly gives him much joy. However, while occasionally he may happen to make a point that deserves serious attention, maybe most of his contributions are merely inaccurate, wrong, trivial or irrelevant. So unless bloggers are feeling generous, they should not feel obligated to reply. Likewise to his obtuse refutations of previously made substantial points. It is not necessary to have the last word.
Now to his current contribution. The fallacy in the way 'Chandra' first presents the argument is that the spectrum of views on humankind's responsibility for climate change is wholly occupied by those who agree and those who don't. But this ignores the huge numbers of people (publishing scientists) (12000 minus 75 divided by 0.97) who do not know sufficiently well to express an opinion. Essentially, 'Chandra' first challenges us to find one more than than the 3% who positively disagreed and imply, possibly somewhat tongue in cheek, that this maybe could not be done in any credible way. But, as, of course, as he perhaps conceded, it is very easy. Any one of the 'don't knows' can be cited because they did not take the steps to establish their agreement in circumstances that made it very easy for them to do so if they so wished. He then avers that inclusion of such persons would require them to be intimidated or scared of losing funding, which he states requires us to believe in a conspiracy, and that all of this will seem far fetched to the public. But firstly, this ignores those who simply do not know whether to agree or not. (The science is NOT settled.) This alone is sufficient to rebut his challenge. But then in addition, his intimidation and fears about funding (ie: simple office politics, peer pressure and the reality of the fear), quite separate from the conspiracies that probably do exist, will actually and not exceptionally as he implies be sufficient to deter others. They are, after all, powerful motivators. In expanded time available for discussions of the 97%, the cognoscenti here will have ample opportunity to put flesh and blood on the bare bones outlined above, and to demonstrate why the host of institutions that adopt the CAGW mantra do so for pragmatic rather than scientific reasons. And because the majority of the relevant facts are humdrum and managerial rather than scientific or technical - the stuff of politics - the public will very readily appreciate how likely they are to be true.
'Chandra' knows all this, of course, but tying bloggers up in knots gives him great joy. However, I cannot find it within me to indulge him further and will not contribute further to this aspect of the 97%.
Ecclesiastical Uncle
Me: “Are you quoting Doran and Zimmerman there, or Cook and Nuccitelli? Both papers are nonsense, of course”.
geoffchambers
More on the contradictory style of BBC presentation between Climate Change & Green Energy versus Fracking
- Someone should ask Prof Steve Jones about 97%
"Steve do you think we could say that 97% of scientific experts say there unlikely to any big fracking catastrophes and that all published science leans that way ?
- so do you think it is "false balance" when the BBC repeatedly airs activists who contradict that opinion ?
- So do you think that mostly those protesters should be kept off air ?
- Do you think it is appropriate that scientific experts on fracking are repeated tackled in such an aggressive style by BBC staff ?"
stewgreen
I would be inclined not to attempt any "refutation" but to simply remind the interlocutor of the history behind this 97%.
Prior to its popularization by Anderegg et al (circa Jul. 2010), all we ever heard about was the so-called "overwhelming scientific consensus". In this respect, it lacked factual foundation - as did the previously much vaunted "all peer reviewed" depiction of the papers cited in the IPCC's assessment reports. In both instances those who have actually examined the data behind the claims have found that they lack validity.
In any event, none of the surveys actually asked the key question regarding the role of human-generated CO2, which is the elephant in the climate change/global warming attribution room.
So the bottom line is ... It doesn't really matter how many (or what percentage) of "experts" or scientists - take your pick - agree with the rather trivial claim that climate change is happening and that human activity has contributed to the "cause". IOW the 97% makes for a great sound-byte - particularly for those who have chosen not to perform their own due diligence; but it is about as far from scientific as one could possibly roam!
Hilary Ostrov
Hilary: you're right, there's no need to "refute" a 97% claim. As I show above (5:45 PM on Monday), all you need do is say there's no evidence supporting it. That puts the onus on your opponent to support it.
Robin Guenier
Robin
all you need do is say there's no evidence supporting it. That puts the onus on your opponent to support it.
That's a bit naïve. The onus is NOT moved to them, because of the cultural and social weight behind the 97% figure it is STILL up to you to prove it is false.
Believer: How can you say it's not happening when 97% of scientists agree it is!
James: (thinking of the Guenier strategy) There's no evidence supporting that 97% figure
Believer: Don't be stupid, it was published in a journal
James: Honestly, it's been debunked
Believer: I never heard that, it would have been all over the news
James: The mainstream media don't report stuff like that
Believer: Conspiracy theorist, I win by default.
TheBigYinJames
TBYJ:
(Unsurprisingly) I disagree. Try this:
Believer: How can you say it's not happening when 97% of scientists agree it is!
James: (thinking of the Guenier strategy) There's no evidence supporting that 97% figure
Believer: Don't be stupid, it was published in a journal
James: And which journal was that?
Believer: Er ... I can't remember now. But I'm sure I've seen it.
James: Well maybe you should get better informed before you make sweeping claims.
Believer (now embarrassed): OK, I'll look it up and get back to you
James: Good - and while you're at it, I suggest you read this (shows him Guenier's select committee submission).
The technique is to keep him on the back foot and not to offer him an opening such as your "Honestly, it's been debunked".
Robin Guenier
Yes, I see where you are coming from. The idea is to keep very specific and force them to be very specific.
I still think the 97% figure has so much cultural weight that their hand-wavy "I heard it" is still more powerful than your absolute knowledge that it is false.
TheBigYinJames
The 97% argument is a perfect example that the greens are wrong.
Like many of their claims it just doesn't stand up to close examination.
- Green arguments consistantly rely on PR rather than science
- There never has been a proper survey, and anyway it's the fallacy of appeal to authority.
- But they parrot dodgy straw PR like this, cos their dogma is not backed by VALIDATED science.
stewgreen
Because of the short time frame of these imaginary tv/radio interviews, it may be worth bothering about canned answers. But that's true of every question on tv and not just the 97%.
Why plan for conversations like this? Just as you do on a blog, if someone throws useless factoids at you, draw out the moment. Ask for specific details. This is the point Robin's making above. The '97%' is its very weakness. I doubt anyone using it casually in a conversation is prepared to let the 97% become the focus of discussion. This will lead to a stalemate or a concession.
shub
I once had to do a lot of radio and TV interviews. You can't plan a precise script because the interviewer has the initiative. So you have to think on your feet. But to succeed in that, it's necessary to have a basic position on issues that may come up. In the case of the 97%, that basic position is this: the only way to determine what specialists/experts etc. think about an issue is to ask them. And the only way to be sure you have an accurate answer is to conduct a worldwide, properly constructed and correctly implemented opinion survey. That's never happened re AGW/CAGW.
So here's another example, this time assuming a more canny interviewer:
Interviewer: How can you say it's not happening when 97% of scientists agree it is!
Me: There's no evidence supporting that 97% figure
Interviewer: Don't be stupid, it was published in a journal
Me: Impossible: the only way to know what scientists think is to conduct an opinion poll and that's not been done.
Interviewer: But I'm sure there have been some major surveys about this.
Me: There have - but none was an opinion poll. And that's the only way to do it.
Interviewer: Hmm ... OK, let's move on.
Me: Fine.
Robin Guenier
The Daily Politics on Friday and the BH discussion thereof got me thinking: how should Matt Ridley (or the interviewer) have refuted the 97% as used on that occasion by Green Party leader Natalie Bennett?
There are two existing, complementary ways that I know of that can be effective on blogs: the Guenier and the Montford. But in a live TV or radio situation it's too easy to get bogged down with the first (in my view) and the second isn't punchy enough as it is.
So here's a fresh proposal for others brighter than me to consider. When someone like Bennett mentions the 97% of scientists first ask:
I assume Bennett would claim the latter, though it would be interesting to see. Then take one of Andrew Neil's three examples of failed predictions and do this with it (I choose Glaciergate here):
Again, interesting to hear the answer.
And then of course:
The moment you go into one of the failed disaster predictions I believe the 97% will be seen as the utter irrelevance it is. This tack will lead naturally to questions of which experts are relevant to the question in hand and the emptiness of what is in fact found (or claimed) to be agreed in Cook et al, Anderegg et al and the rest.
But what do others think? Could this work in a live media situation? Is it too complicated? I don't think so but that of course depends on the context and time constraints.
Thanks to Andrew Neil's excellent work on Friday for seeding this idea and to Martin A for 'refute'!