![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
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.
References
|
Anderegg, W., Prall, J. W., Harold, J., Schneider, S. H. (2010). Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 12107-12109. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Atkin, E. (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/ Google Scholar | |
|
Avakyan, S. V. (2013a). Problems of climate as a problem of optics. Journal of Optical Technology, 80, 717-721. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Avakyan, S. V. (2013b). The role of solar activity in global warming. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 83, 275-285. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S. A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., . . . Skuce, A. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters, 8, 024024. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Doran, P. T., Zimmerman, M. K. (2009). Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 90(3), 22-23. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Gervais, F. (2014). Tiny warming of residual anthropogenic CO2. International Journal of Modern Physics B, 28, 1450095. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Happer, W. (2014). Why has global warming paused? International Journal of Modern Physics A, 29, 1460003. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Hug, H. (2013). “The Climate Models are inadequate”: Heinz Hug queries the significance of CO2 for climate change. Nachrichten Aus Der Chemie, 61, 132. Google Scholar | |
|
Kolbert, E. (2007). Field notes from a catastrophe: Man, nature, and climate change. New York, NY: Bloomsbury. Google Scholar | |
|
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Obama, B. (2013). Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #Climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/barackobama/status/335089477296988160 Google Scholar | |
|
Oreskes, N. (1999). The rejection of continental drift: Theory and method in American earth science. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
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/ Google Scholar | |
|
Powell, J. L. (2015). Four revolutions in the earth sciences: From heresy to truth. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Weart, S. R. (2008). The discovery of global warming. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar | Crossref |
