29 April 2016
The Consensus on the Consensus Is Itself Overwhelming
Posted by Dan Satterfield
From Skeptical Science.
My friend Ed Maibach at George Mason Univ. emailed me some interesting abstracts today that show how overwhelming the consensus is on climate change among scientists working in the field. Researchers like Ed and Dr. Oreskes (among others) have shown that the consensus now is nearly unanimous among those in the field. The belief that scientists are divided over the question must be the greatest scientific myth in the United States. I think it may even pass the myths that linger over biological evolution. To quote from one of the abstracts:
Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity. The U.S. House of Representatives holds 40 times as many global warming rejecters as are found among the authors of scientific articles. The peer-reviewed literature contains no convincing evidence against AGW.
Next time you see someone on TV saying climate change is not real, or you read it in a newspaper or magazine, remember that one of two things is true:
1.They have no expertise in climate science.
2., They are one of tiny handful who disagree with almost EVERYONE else, and are unable to show why they are correct in the peer-reviewed literature.
Denying that our climate is being impacted by human activity, is now just another conspiracy theory (like NASA faked the Moon landing and chemtrails.) . Repeat the words of Richard Feynman with me: Science si what we do to keep from lying to ourselves.”
Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming
John Cook1,2,3,16, Naomi Oreskes4, Peter T Doran5, William R L Anderegg6,7, Bart Verheggen8, Ed W Maibach9, J Stuart Carlton10, Stephan Lewandowsky11,2,Andrew G Skuce12,3, Sarah A Green13Show full author list
Published 13 April 2016 • © 2016 IOP Publishing Ltd
, ,
Abstract
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming (‘no position’) represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
99.9% of peer reviewed studies:
Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous
Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True
Abstract
The extent of the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has the potential to influence public opinion and the attitude of political leaders and thus matters greatly to society. The history of science demonstrates that if we wish to judge the level of a scientific consensus and whether the consensus position is likely to be correct, the only reliable source is the peer-reviewed literature. During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity. The U.S. House of Representatives holds 40 times as many global warming rejecters as are found among the authors of scientific articles. The peer-reviewed literature contains no convincing evidence against AGW.
Dan Satterfield has worked as an on air meteorologist for 32 years in Oklahoma, Florida and Alabama. Forecasting weather is Dan's job, but all of Earth Science is his passion. This journal is where Dan writes about things he has too little time for on air. Dan blogs about peer-reviewed Earth science for Junior High level audiences and up.