Reply to ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature: A re-analysis’
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%.
Cook, John; Nuccitelli, Dana; Skuce, Andrew G.; Jacobs, Peter; Painting, Rob; Honeycutt, Rob; Green, Sarah; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Richardson, Mark; and Way, Robert G., "Reply to ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature: A re-analysis’" (2014). Great Lakes Research Center Publications. 4.