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

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 University
Stephan Lewandowsky, University of Bristol
Mark Richardson, University of Reading
Robert G. Way, University of Ottawa

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. Publisher's version of record:


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%.