Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

John Cook; Dana Nuccitelli; Sarah A. Green; Mark Richardson; Barbel  Winkler; Rob Painting; Robert Way; Peter Jacobs; Andrew Skuce

doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A. Green, Mark Richardson, Barbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs, Andrew Skuce

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer-review

960 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original language	English
Article number	024024
Number of pages	8
Journal	Environmental Research Letters
Volume	8
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Publication status	Published - Apr 2013
Externally published	Yes

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being
SDG 7 Affordable and Clean Energy
SDG 13 Climate Action

Keywords

anthropogenic global warming
global climate change
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
peer-review
scientific consensus

Access to Document

10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Cite this

@article{ae5ace38e18d4492bb67c696a6fcb64e,

title = "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature",

abstract = "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.",

keywords = "anthropogenic global warming, global climate change, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, peer-review, scientific consensus",

author = "John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli and Green, \{Sarah A.\} and Mark Richardson and Barbel Winkler and Rob Painting and Robert Way and Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce",

year = "2013",

month = apr,

doi = "10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024",

language = "English",

volume = "8",

journal = "Environmental Research Letters",

issn = "1748-9326",

publisher = "IOP Publishing",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

AU - Cook, John

AU - Nuccitelli, Dana

AU - Green, Sarah A.

AU - Richardson, Mark

AU - Winkler, Barbel

AU - Painting, Rob

AU - Way, Robert

AU - Jacobs, Peter

AU - Skuce, Andrew

PY - 2013/4

Y1 - 2013/4

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - anthropogenic global warming

KW - global climate change

KW - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

KW - peer-review

KW - scientific consensus

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84879965318

U2 - 10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

DO - 10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84879965318

SN - 1748-9326

VL - 8

JO - Environmental Research Letters

JF - Environmental Research Letters

IS - 2

M1 - 024024

ER -

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

Abstract

UN SDGs

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Reply to Comment on 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature'

Reply to 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature: a re-analysis'

Cite this