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

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2014.06.002

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 journal › Editorial (Academic Journal) › peer-review

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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 language	English
Pages (from-to)	706-708
Number of pages	3
Journal	Energy Policy
Volume	73
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.06.002
Publication status	Published - Oct 2014

Structured keywords

Memory
TeDCog

Keywords

Scientific consensus
Global climate change
Anthropogenic global warming
CLIMATE-CHANGE

UN SDGs

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

Access to Document

10.1016/j.enpol.2014.06.002

Handle.net

Persistent link

Cite this

@article{dd050347943b46189f6b43aeed1cca2c,

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

abstract = "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%. {\textcopyright} 2014 Elsevier Ltd.",

keywords = "Scientific consensus, Global climate change, Anthropogenic global warming, CLIMATE-CHANGE",

author = "John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli and Andrew Skuce and Peter Jacobs and Rob Painting and Rob Honeycutt and Green, {Sarah A.} and Stephan Lewandowsky and Mark Richardson and Way, {Robert G.}",

year = "2014",

month = oct,

doi = "10.1016/j.enpol.2014.06.002",

language = "English",

volume = "73",

pages = "706--708",

journal = "Energy Policy",

issn = "0301-4215",

publisher = "Butterworths",

}

TY - JOUR

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

T2 - A re-analysis'

AU - Cook, John

AU - Nuccitelli, Dana

AU - Skuce, Andrew

AU - Jacobs, Peter

AU - Painting, Rob

AU - Honeycutt, Rob

AU - Green, Sarah A.

AU - Lewandowsky, Stephan

AU - Richardson, Mark

AU - Way, Robert G.

PY - 2014/10

Y1 - 2014/10

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Scientific consensus

KW - Global climate change

KW - Anthropogenic global warming

KW - CLIMATE-CHANGE

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84905398849&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.06.002

DO - 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.06.002

M3 - Editorial (Academic Journal)

SN - 0301-4215

VL - 73

SP - 706

EP - 708

JO - Energy Policy

JF - Energy Policy

ER -

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

Abstract

Structured keywords

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Handle.net

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this