Climate Change And Covid Origins: The 'Quantifying The Consensus' Scam

11 years ago, this infamous paper was published:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

The 97% AGW consensus claim was shown to be bogus, but even now, 11 years later, hysterical climate alarmists still refer to it as fact which is evidence of the reality of climate change - or ‘climate breakdown’ or the ‘climate crisis’ as they now lovingly refer to their pet doomsday theory.

Fast forward almost 11 years from the mythical 97% AGW consensus and we now have:

https://gcrinstitute.org/covid-origin/

While expert opinion does not necessarily match the underlying truth, carefully obtained expert opinion can indicate the current state-of-the-art thinking on a topic and the extent of consensus across experts. The survey results correspond to the beliefs expressed by the 168 experts who participated in the study.

The survey is summarized in a main report and detailed in a methodological and analytical annex.

Main findings from the survey include:

• The study’s experts overall stated that the COVID-19 pandemic most likely originated via a natural zoonotic event, defined as an event in which a non-human animal infected a human, and in which the infection did not occur in the course of any form of virological or biomedical research. The experts generally gave a lower probability for origin via a research-related accident, but most experts indicated some chance of origin via accident and about one fifth of the experts stated that an accident was the more likely origin. These beliefs were similar across experts from different geographic and academic backgrounds.

• The experts mostly expressed the view that more research on COVID-19’s origin could be of value. About half of the experts stated that major gaps still remain in the understanding COVID-19’s origin, and most of the other experts also stated that some research is still needed. About 40% of experts stated that clarity on COVID-19 origins would provide a better understanding of the potential origins of future pandemics. Given clarity on COVID-19’s origin, experts also proposed a variety of governance changes for addressing future pandemics, including measures to prevent initial human infection, measures to prevent initial infection from becoming pandemic, and measures to mitigate the harm once the pandemic occurs.

• The vast majority of the experts express the belief that a natural zoonotic event will likely be the origin of the next pandemic.

• The experts also provided a set of clear recommendations for preventing, preparing for and responding to future pandemics, which generally align with many previous studies.

“The COVID-19 pandemic was a major tragedy, but unfortunately, future pandemics could be even worse,” said Seth Baum, Executive Director of GCRI. “By studying COVID-19, including its origin, we can better reduce the risk of future pandemics.”

You see how this works? All you need is a ‘consensus of experts’ to put the stamp of scientific authority on your preferred narrative, and the prefrred narrative is most definitely the Zoo Crew’s “spillover” event, whereby a pangolin, or raccoon dog, or some other unfortunate creature trapped in a ‘wet’ market in Wuhan had an affair with a bat and infected the entire human race with a nasty cold as a result.

I don’t know whether this alleged ‘consensus’ will prove to be just as bogus as the 97% AGW consensus, but even if it turns out to be genuine, consensus has no place in science and if, as is the case, the hard evidence, the forensic evidence, points undeniably towards a lab origin of SARS-CoV-2, then the harvesting of expert ‘opinion’ on an alternative origin of SARS-CoV-2 is little more than an exercise in desperation on the part of the “Zoonati cultists”.

Even at this early stage of the paper’s release, some are questioning how ‘expert’ the experts involved really were:

11 years on. Nothing much has changed in politically motivated pseudoscience.

Update: 4th February 2024

It hasn’t taken long for this survey to start to be debunked.