97% Consequential Misperceptions: Ethics of Consensus on Global Warming

Michelle Stirling


December 19, 2016

Cook et al (2016) presents a collaborative work by several consensus study authors, who claim a 97% agreement by undefined climate science experts that “humans are causing recent global warming.” The statement illustrates the problem of trying to use a social proof of consensus in place of scientifically defined evidence. The lack of empirical parameters that specifically identify the claimed ratio of human effect versus natural influence, the timescale in question, the level of risk or benefit, and the human activity or causative factor(s) are undefined. The notion of consensus defies the fundamental principle of scientific inquiry which is not about agreement, but rather a continuous search for understanding. This paper evaluates key disparities of Cook et al (2016) and outlines why a claimed consensus is a powerful tool for driving public policy, but an inappropriate and unethical means of conducting scientific inquiry or informing the public.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 18

Keywords: scientific consensus, climate change, anthropogenic global warming, Asch

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: December 19, 2016  

Suggested Citation

Stirling, Michelle, 97% Consequential Misperceptions: Ethics of Consensus on Global Warming (December 19, 2016). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2887245 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2887245

Contact Information

Michelle Stirling (Contact Author)
Independent ( email )
No Address Available
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 636
Downloads: 111
Download Rank: 196,676