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

Authors

John Cook, Global Change Institute
Dana Nuccitelli, Skeptical Science
Andrew G. Skuce, Salt Spring Consulting Ltd.
Peter Jacobs, George Mason University
Rob Painting, Skeptical Science
Rob Honeycutt, Skeptical Science
Sarah Green, Michigan Technological UniversityFollow
Stephan Lewandowsky, University of Bristol
Mark Richardson, University of Reading
Robert G. Way, University of Ottawa

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

10-1-2014

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 (

Publisher's Statement

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. Publisher's version of record: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.06.002

Publication Title

Energy Policy

Recommended Citation

Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Skuce, A. G., Jacobs, P., Painting, R., Honeycutt, R., Green, S., Lewandowsky, S., Richardson, M., & Way, R. G. (2014). Reply to ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature: A re-analysis’. Energy Policy, 73, 706-708. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.06.002
Retrieved from: https://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/chemistry-fp/69