Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Cook, John
• Nuccitelli, Dana
• Skuce, Andrew
• Jacobs, Peter
• Painting, Rob
• Honeycutt, Rob
• Green, Sarah A.
• Lewandowsky, Stephan
• Richardson, Mark
• Way, Robert G.

Titel

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

Ist Teil von

• Energy policy, 2014-10, Vol.73, p.706-708

Ort / Verlag

Kidlington: Elsevier Ltd

Erscheinungsjahr

2014

Link zum Volltext

Quelle

PAIS Index

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• 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%. •T14′s consensus value is based on a math error that manufactures ~300 nonexistent rejection papers.•T14 infers data drift using an inappropriate statistic that poorly correlates with consensus.•Analysis of appropriate consensus statistics reveals no significant data drift.•T14 wrongly conflates abstract ratings and author self-ratings; differences are detailed in C13.•Re-analysis without T14′s errors confirms 97±1% consensus on AGW.