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

John Cook, D. Nuccitelli, A. Skuce, P. Jacobs, R. Painting, R. Honeycutt, S.A. Green, Stephan Lewandowsky, M.I. Richardson, R.G. Way

Research output: Contribution to journalLetter

13 Citations (Scopus)

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 (
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)706-708
JournalEnergy Policy
Volume73
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014

    Fingerprint

Cite this

Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Skuce, A., Jacobs, P., Painting, R., Honeycutt, R., ... 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.06.002