Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The extent of the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has the potential to influence public opinion and the attitude of political leaders and thus matters greatly to society. The history of science demonstrates that if we wish to judge the level of a scientific consensus and whether the consensus position is likely to be correct, the only reliable source is the peer-reviewed literature. During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity. The U.S. House of Representatives holds 40 times as many global warming rejecters as are found among the authors of scientific articles. The peer-reviewed literature contains no convincing evidence against AGW.

Keywords

global warming climate change consensus peer review history of science

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderegg

Prall

J. W.

Harold

Schneider

S. H.

(2010). Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 12107-12109.

Atkin

(2015). Ted Cruz challenged science at his climate change hearing: Science won. Retrieved from http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/10/3729732/ted-cruz-and-science-have-a-rocky-relationship/

Avakyan

S. V.

(2013a). Problems of climate as a problem of optics. Journal of Optical Technology, 80, 717-721.

Avakyan

S. V.

(2013b). The role of solar activity in global warming. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 83, 275-285.

Cook

Nuccitelli

Green

S. A.

Richardson

Winkler

Painting

. . . Skuce

(2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters, 8, 024024.

Doran

P. T.

Zimmerman

M. K.

(2009). Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 90(3), 22-23.

Gervais

(2014). Tiny warming of residual anthropogenic CO₂. International Journal of Modern Physics B, 28, 1450095.

Happer

(2014). Why has global warming paused? International Journal of Modern Physics A, 29, 1460003.

Hug

(2013). “The Climate Models are inadequate”: Heinz Hug queries the significance of CO₂ for climate change. Nachrichten Aus Der Chemie, 61, 132.

10.

Kolbert

(2007). Field notes from a catastrophe: Man, nature, and climate change. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.

11.

Kuhn

T. S.

(1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

12.

Obama

(2013). Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #Climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/barackobama/status/335089477296988160

13.

Oreskes

(1999). The rejection of continental drift: Theory and method in American earth science. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

14.

Pew Research Center. (2015). Public and scientists’ views on science and society. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/

15.

Powell

J. L.

(2015). Four revolutions in the earth sciences: From heresy to truth. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

16.

Weart

S. R.

(2008). The discovery of global warming. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB