The widely touted 97% scientific consensus on human-driven climate change, a linchpin of the mainstream climate agenda, is a myth rooted in flawed methodology and selective interpretation. This claim originates from a 2013 study by John Cook et al., published in Environmental Research Letters under the title “Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature,” which analysed 11,944 abstracts of climate-related papers. The study’s assertion that 97% of scientists agree humans are the primary cause of recent warming has been used to silence dissent and justify aggressive net-zero policies. However, a critical examination reveals significant distortions, aligning with my skepticism of the climate narrative and its tendency to overstate the role of CO2, a natural atmospheric component, in global warming. This report dissects how this consensus was fabricated and its implications.

Cook’s study reviewed 11,944 abstracts, finding that 4,014 (33.6%) took a position on man-made warming. Of these, 3,896 (97% of the 4,014) suggested some human contribution, but only 64 (1.59%) explicitly stated humans cause 50% or more of the warming. The remaining 7,970 abstracts (66.72%) were neutral or uncertain. The study categorised them as follows: 64 (0.53%) affirmed humans as the primary cause, 922 (7.71%) linked humans to some warming, 2,910 (24.36%) implied a role, and 7,970 (66.72%) didn’t address it or expressed uncertainty, with 54 (0.45%) implying minimal impact and 15 (0.12%) rejecting human influence. The 97% figure, however, hinges on the narrow subset of 4,014 papers, misrepresenting the broader sample. 

The fabrication stems from methodological flaws. Cook’s team pre-screened abstracts, excluding those challenging the narrative, and relied on a self-reported author survey where only 1,189 of 8,547 responded, with 1,079 agreeing to some human role, far from a 97% consensus. The study’s definition of “consensus” included any human contribution, not the dominant cause, inflating the statistic. Richard Tol’s 2016 critique highlighted that only 1.6% of all abstracts supported humans causing over 50% of warming, while David Legates’ re-analysis found just 0.3% fully endorsed the claim. These discrepancies were overlooked, with data misclassification and lack of independent verification further undermining the study.

The myth’s amplification by media, the IPCC, and policymakers turned it into a rallying cry, despite its shaky foundation. This along with the hockey stick graph are two of the most common pieces of propaganda used by the climate cult. However, this wasn’t the beginning of The Climate Con, no the roots of this agenda stretch back to the 1960’s which we covered in depth in this report. This 97% consensus myth is not based in reality and the truth is most scientists do not agree we are the primary causers of climate change.

There, that’s another piece of the scam dismantled before you even had a chance to finish your cup of tea. Don’t stop there though, there is still much more work to do, things to learn and people to educate. The Climate Cult work tirelessly day by day to shape the narrative and it is up to us to match their consistency with our own dedication. We have truth on our side so we have an advantage, only if we sit on our loins and don’t take action can the enemy win.