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

Autor:	Peter G. Jacobs, John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Andrew G. Skuce, Stephan Lewandowsky, Rob Painting, Mark Richardson, Rob Honeycutt, Sarah A. Green, Robert G. Way
Rok vydání:	2014
Předmět:	General Energy History Calculation error Global warming Climate change Scientific consensus Scientific literature Management Monitoring Policy and Law Positive economics Sign (mathematics)
Zdroj:	Energy Policy. 73:706-708
ISSN:	0301-4215
DOI:	10.1016/j.enpol.2014.06.002
Popis:	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 (
Databáze:	OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz:	https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_________::54a21d95bdb13497add042e010f99bfb https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.06.002 Zobrazit plný text záznamu Full Text from ScienceDirect