Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
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 po...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
IOP Publishing
2013-01-01
|
| Series: | Environmental Research Letters |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 |
| _version_ | 1827871035177828352 |
|---|---|
| author | John Cook Dana Nuccitelli Sarah A Green Mark Richardson Bärbel Winkler Rob Painting Robert Way Peter Jacobs Andrew Skuce |
| author_facet | John Cook Dana Nuccitelli Sarah A Green Mark Richardson Bärbel Winkler Rob Painting Robert Way Peter Jacobs Andrew Skuce |
| author_sort | John Cook |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-12T16:05:15Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-17facdff851e4a32a8617b46f1e9c07d |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1748-9326 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-12T16:05:15Z |
| publishDate | 2013-01-01 |
| publisher | IOP Publishing |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Environmental Research Letters |
| spelling | doaj.art-17facdff851e4a32a8617b46f1e9c07d2023-08-09T14:23:32ZengIOP PublishingEnvironmental Research Letters1748-93262013-01-018202402410.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literatureJohn Cook0Dana Nuccitelli1Sarah A Green2Mark Richardson3Bärbel Winkler4Rob Painting5Robert Way6Peter Jacobs7Andrew Skuce8Global Change Institute, University of Queensland , Australia; Skeptical Science , Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; School of Psychology, University of Western Australia , AustraliaSkeptical Science , Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Tetra Tech, Incorporated , McClellan, CA, USADepartment of Chemistry, Michigan Technological University , USADepartment of Meteorology, University of Reading , UKSkeptical Science , Brisbane, Queensland, AustraliaSkeptical Science , Brisbane, Queensland, AustraliaDepartment of Geography, Memorial University of Newfoundland , CanadaDepartment of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University , USASkeptical Science , Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Salt Spring Consulting Ltd, Salt Spring Island , BC, CanadaWe 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.https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024scientific consensusanthropogenic global warmingpeer-reviewglobal climate changeIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change |
| spellingShingle | John Cook Dana Nuccitelli Sarah A Green Mark Richardson Bärbel Winkler Rob Painting Robert Way Peter Jacobs Andrew Skuce Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature Environmental Research Letters scientific consensus anthropogenic global warming peer-review global climate change Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change |
| title | Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature |
| title_full | Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature |
| title_fullStr | Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature |
| title_full_unstemmed | Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature |
| title_short | Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature |
| title_sort | quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature |
| topic | scientific consensus anthropogenic global warming peer-review global climate change Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT johncook quantifyingtheconsensusonanthropogenicglobalwarminginthescientificliterature AT dananuccitelli quantifyingtheconsensusonanthropogenicglobalwarminginthescientificliterature AT sarahagreen quantifyingtheconsensusonanthropogenicglobalwarminginthescientificliterature AT markrichardson quantifyingtheconsensusonanthropogenicglobalwarminginthescientificliterature AT barbelwinkler quantifyingtheconsensusonanthropogenicglobalwarminginthescientificliterature AT robpainting quantifyingtheconsensusonanthropogenicglobalwarminginthescientificliterature AT robertway quantifyingtheconsensusonanthropogenicglobalwarminginthescientificliterature AT peterjacobs quantifyingtheconsensusonanthropogenicglobalwarminginthescientificliterature AT andrewskuce quantifyingtheconsensusonanthropogenicglobalwarminginthescientificliterature |