Skip Navigation

“Consensus?” What “Consensus”? Among Scientists, the Debate is Not Over

July 1, 2007
By The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

This 2007 report written by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, and published by the Science and Public Policy Institute, challenges the claim of an unanimous scientific consensus that climate change is both man-made and a problem.

landscape

This 2007 report written by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, and published by the Science and Public Policy Institute, challenges the claim of an unanimous scientific consensus that climate change is both man-made and a problem. Monckton first identifies potential sources of this claim and finds it to almost entirely be the result of an essay written by Historian Naomi Orestes published in the journal Science. Monckton finds numerous errors in Oreskes' essay which leads him to conjecture her work was not peer-reviewed since it was presented as an essay and not a scientific paper. Such errors include using the search term "global climate change" instead of "climate change," which covered fewer than one-thirteenth of the estimated corpus of scientific papers on climate change over the stated decade. Monckton also takes issue with Oreskes never stating how many of the 928 abstracts she reviewed had endorsed her limited definition of "consensus," whereas an alternative review by Dr. Benny Peiser found a mere one percent had done so. Monckton would go on to further cover the work of Dr. Peiser and Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, each of whom posit devasting critques of Oreskes' paper. Monckton concludes that there is no proof of a consensus over man-made climate change and that claims that the "debate is settled" are spurious.