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

John Cook*, Dana Nuccitelli, Andrew Skuce, Peter Jacobs, Rob Painting, Rob Honeycutt, Sarah A. Green, Stephan Lewandowsky, Mark Richardson, Robert G. Way

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorial (Academic Journal)peer-review

16 Citations (Scopus)


Cook et al. (2013) (C13) found that 97% of relevant climate papers endorse anthropogenic global warming (AGW), consistent with previous independent studies. Tol (in press) (T14) agrees that the scientific literature 'overwhelmingly supports' AGW, but disputes C13's methods. We show that T14's claims of a slightly lower consensus result from a basic calculation error that manufactures approximately 300 nonexistent rejection papers. T14's claimed impact on consensus due to the reconciliation process is of the wrong sign, with reconciliation resulting in a slight increase (<0.2%) in the consensus percentage. Allegations of data inconsistency are based on statistics unrelated to consensus. Running the same tests using appropriate consensus statistics shows no evidence of inconsistency. We confirm that the consensus is robust at 97±1%. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)706-708
Number of pages3
JournalEnergy Policy
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2014

Structured keywords

  • Memory
  • TeDCog


  • Scientific consensus
  • Global climate change
  • Anthropogenic global warming


Dive into the research topics of 'Reply to 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature: A re-analysis''. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this