Super fact 34: Climate Scientists agree that Global Warming or if you call it Climate Change is happening, and that it is caused by us primarily because of our burning of fossil fuels. There is a long-standing scientific consensus on these two facts because the evidence is conclusive. Typically, studies show an agreement of at least 97% or 98% among climate scientists.
This is a super fact because surveys show that this is not what the public believes and yet it is true. The public incorrectly believes that there is a large disagreement among scientists on this topic. A note, to understand why the evidence is conclusive as to why global warming is happening and is caused by us click here.
Note : I will use the term “global warming” in this review. Whether you call the phenomenon climate change, climate disruption, or global heating, is not important.
The Scientific Consensus
This extensive survey from 2013 of 12,000 climate papers (papers published over two decades) by Dana Nuccitelli and Cook, etc., concluded that 97.1% of climate scientists endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
They also did a science author self-rating which concluded that 97.2% of climate scientists endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. Another conclusion from the survey was that the consensus had increased from around 90%, perhaps less, in the early 1990’s.
A later review of six independent, peer-reviewed studies examining the scientific consensus about global warming have concluded that between 90% and 100% of climate scientists are convinced human-caused global warming is happening. A more recent study (2021) found that as many as 98% of climate scientists are convinced global warming is happening and is human-caused. Numerous other surveys have concluded the same thing.
People’s Beliefs About Global Warming
This 2024 survey from Yale University show that most Americans (61%) understand that global warming is mostly human caused. By contrast, 28% think it is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment. Most Americans (58%) <<Link-6>> understand that most scientists think global warming is happening. This percentage has trended generally upward since this survey began in 2008. By contrast, about one in five (22%) think there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether global warming is happening.
However, only one in five Americans (20%) understand that nearly all climate scientists (more than 90%) think that human-caused global warming is happening. The aforementioned Dana Nuccitelli refers to this in his book Climatology versus Pseudoscience as the consensus gap. Again, this large discrepancy between public perception and reality makes the consensus gap a super fact. Research has shown that this discrepancy has a large impact on people’s other beliefs regarding global warming.
Why is there a Consensus Gap?
In his book Climatology versus Pseudoscience Dana Nuccitelli explains that a relatively small group of so-called climate skeptics, or more accurately called climate contrarians have received a lot of attention from media. Even though their science is bad, and they’ve published their error ridden papers in obscure or discredited journals, and the fact that their predictions have failed repeatedly many times over, they have had an enormous influence on public discourse. Conservative politicians, and many talk show hosts are blindly devoted to their falsehoods, whilst real scientists are being attacked.
It is not just rightwing media who are using them for their purposes, but mainstream media are giving the contrarians undue attention as well. Sensationalism is one issue. A science contrarian claiming that all the climate scientists are wrong, and that he is the only one who finally got it right is a lot more interesting of a story than a repeat of the consensus. Another issue is false balance. Journalist should not feel that they must give equal time to evidence-based science and nonsense, but that is often the case. To read my review of this book click here.
The Oregon Petition
I am mentioning the Oregon petition because I fell for it myself. The Oregon petition was an official looking petition circulated by climate contrarians, claiming that there is no evidence that human-caused global warming will cause catastrophic heating of earth’s atmosphere and disruption of earth’s climate, and that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere would even be beneficial for plants and animals. It got an impressive number of signatures, 32,000 after some years.
However, it turned out that the signatories rarely had climate expertise, and were not scientists, and the survey listed many falsified names such as the names of the Spice Girls and several fictional characters. Less than 200 of the signatories were climate researchers.
It was a con, but it was touted in a lot of media as the truth. I saw it over and over and I believed it. I was later surprised to learn that it was a con and that a scientific consensus existed on global warming / climate change. Learning that I had been bamboozled on this matter was one of the red flags that prompted me to start doing some fact checking on the issue global warming.
To see the other Super Facts click here
Newstrade
One only has to visit my home state of Alaska and tour any one of our glorious glaciers to know that warming, whatever you choose to call it, or not- is real. Very informative article.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you so much Violet. It is the same in northern Scandinavia where I am from. Glaciers are shrinking, snow seasons are getting visibly shorter, southern species move north, reindeers go crazy, unusual drought and heat and strange large wildfires associated with that, etc. However, here in Texas where I live now, the average temperature rise is smaller and the weather fluctuate a lot naturally making it difficult to notice. Luckily scientists from all over the world, NASA, NOAA, etc., have collected so much data and evidence that anyone who is willing to take an honest look at the evidence will realize that it is happening and that we are the cause. That way even a Texan can see it and understand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I feel like the proof is right before our eyes, you don’t even need scientists to confirm it anymore. Weather patterns have changed so much, there are so many natural disasters and extreme weather.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are right Pooja. To some degree (pun not intended) you can see it for yourself. In northern Scandinavia where I am originally from, it is fairly easy to see over the last few decades (I am old). Glaciers are shrinking, snow seasons are getting visibly shorter, southern species move north, reindeers go crazy, there’s been unusual drought and heat waves and strange large wildfires associated with that, etc. Here in Texas where the average temperature rise has been less and the weather has always been fluctuating a lot it is more difficult to see. However, the scientists around the world and organizations such as NASA and NOAA and even the US military have collected lots of data and evidence that clearly show that it is happening and that we are the cause.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s very visible in Kenya too. The heat is constantly increasing, the weather patterns are completely changed. Wildlife is dying due to weather changes. I can imagine it’s harder to notice in places like Texas. But like you said there’s so much evidence out there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is possible I have not been paying enough attention, but I think it is not easy to see in Texas. The water situation is obviously getting worse here but it is a combination of climate change and the fact there are more people moving here, which is hard to pick what to blame. Sciensists measure and keep track through. It is interesting that you can see it in Kenya.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think in some areas it is a little harder to notice but yeah the scientific evidence is still definitely out there. Yeah, it’s become quite obvious in Kenya.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is interesting, well sad also.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, very sad. It’s killing the wildlife and making life a lot more uncomfortable due to the more extreme heatwaves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am sorry to hear that Pooja. In northern Sweden the summers are supposed to be cool and when the temperatures reach above 30 Centigrades the reindeer suffer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The summers here used to be cooler too but these days the heat is getting really bad. The animals are always the ones that suffer first.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are right Pooja. We can protect ourselves but the animals have nowhere to go
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, we can turn on the AC or fan but they don’t have that privilege.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is exactly it. You can leave cold water outside but switch it out often so mosquitos don’t breed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think that people prefer to think climate change is not related to fossil fuels. Changing involves personal sacrifice due to costs and giving up certain things. People don’t want to make the sacrifices so they believe what is most convenient to their preferred truth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is a very good point. You are right, people don’t want to accept it. However, I also agree with Dana Nuccitelli that the media, at least certain media has created a lot of confusion. The evidence has been strong since the 1960’s, conclusive since the 1990’s, and the scientific consensus +90% since 1990, close to 100% since around 2010 and yet here we are having people being surprised to hear those facts. Only 20% think there is a consensus in 2024 (if you call consensus +90% agreement).
LikeLike
The media is responsible for a lot of ills in our society. They spread sensationalized news that borders on being fake. Have you read the Edelman Trust Report. It is quite interesting. You can download it here: https://www.edelman.com/trust/2025/trust-barometer
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes I agree and the other side of that issue is that we as customers need to stop being drawn to sensation and click bait. We need to question our own beliefs first, not that of others, especially if they are better informed than we are. I have a lot of trust in working scientists, scientific organizations, reputable science journals, and reputable research centers/orgnizations, such as Pew Research center and Our World in Data. I have low trust in journalists reporting on science in non-science papers, and lawyers, theologicians, and businessmen writing about science. It is not their field and they typically have agendas. I have zero trust in politicians and social media. The trust barometer looks like a very interesting website. It is the first time I see it and I took a look. Thank you Robbie.
LikeLike
Yikes, this is so scary, Thomas. The weather down here in Florida has become so much more unstable in the last several years. It used to be tolerable but now it’s become so unbearably hot. Definitely so many more people have moved here, and the constant building doesn’t help.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes the urban heat island effect makes it worse. Cities with asphalt and black roofs get hotter than the country side. One way to fight the urban heat island effect is to plant more trees and paint things white instead of dark colors. In northern Scandinavia where I am originally from, it is fairly easy to see the effects over the last few decades (I am old). Glaciers are shrinking, snow seasons are getting visibly shorter, southern species move north, reindeers go crazy, there’s been unusual drought and heat waves and recently strange large wildfires associated with that, etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scientists know the truth however coupled with social media and as you say climate skeptics touting their truth as they see it doesn’t take away from what is happening around the world naturally that we can see. Robbie is correct people don’t want to make sacrifices and how without forcing them too can we do anything about those individuals? It’s a no win situation until it effects them and their lifestyles to the point they cannot deny what is happening and by then we may have passed the point of no return…
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are right. It is much better to act earlier than later. I’ve read somewhere that even if you would stop all emissions cold, none at all, you would still get another 30 years of increasing temperatures before it starts to turn around. Then it would take hundreds of years for it to come back down to normal. It moves slowly and with a great lag. It’s called the hysteresis effect. You also have critical points and positive feedback loops that can lock in global heating you can’t do much about. For example, if the Greenland ice sheet melts away, Greenland would no longer reflect back as much sunlight (reduced albedo) adding global warming. Even if you brought temperatures back down it would take thousands of years for the ice sheet to build back up. On the other hand we are probably not at risk for exterminmating ourselves but we can decide how much hardship our grand children will have from global warming, some, a lot, or a horrible future. We decide now. The book “the storms of my grandchildren” by physicist and climate scientist James Hansen, explains this well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting. Thomas, I think I would rather know that my grandchildren would not have a horrible future however its not in my hands or yours as we are reliant on so many other people and factors…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes you are right Carol. We are reliant on so many other people around the world. But I think education and friendly political action can be very effective. It has already.
LikeLike
As I’ve said before, the average person is just trying to survive day-to-day and doesn’t want to deal with it. And then you have left-wingers like AOC telling people that the world is going to end in 12 years, and people get disgusted and write the whole thing off as hysteria. I’ve been watching the climate change since the 1980s, so I know it’s real. I see it with my own eyes. Plus, I read all the books about it that came out in the 1990s. Furthermore, real, bona fide scientists have been wrong in their predictions since the 1970s, so those of us who’ve been around a while and seen the predictions fail don’t automatically take everything as gospel. But I do believe it’s too late to reverse it. Mother Nature is in control, not us. And each new technology creates a new set of problems.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your comment, Dawn. Yes, AOC is very leftwing, and she’s said some strange things, but she is a politician. IPCC concluded something like; if we continue with our emissions as is for another 12 years, then we may lock in warming that could have serious consequences for future generations (a delay of about 30 years). From that she deduced that younger generations fear that the world will end in 12 years, which is not a reasonable interpretation.
I wonder about the real bona fide scientists being wrong about their predictions/projections that you are referring to. The models and the climate scientists have been amazingly accurate since the 1980’s in my opinion. Remember their projections are typically a range, so if a politicians select an upper or lower end only, that is not on the model/scientist. Well, excluding the small group of contrarians often paid by political think thanks (on the right) and who are getting their articles printed in obscure disreputable journals. The contrarians have often been wrong. I am just curious what you had in mind there.
Luckily it is not too late to reverse. It is unlikely to ever be too late. It depends on our carbon emissions whether it will be better or worse for our grandkids, but don’t worry about too late.
LikeLike
Java Bean: “Ayyy, if we can’t trust the Spice Girls on the climate, then there’s no hope for us at all!”Charlee: “Do you even know who the Spice Girls are?”Java Bean: “TV chefs I assume … ?”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ha ha Java Bean and Charlee you are the greatest comedians. I was laughing hard.
LikeLike