4.7 Article

Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS
Volume 16, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

Keywords

global warming; climate change; scientific consensus

Funding

  1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Through a study of a large number of relevant literature, it is concluded with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
While controls over the Earth's climate system have undergone rigorous hypothesis-testing since the 1800s, questions over the scientific consensus of the role of human activities in modern climate change continue to arise in public settings. We update previous efforts to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change by searching the recent literature for papers sceptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change-expressed as a proportion of the total publications-exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available