standOff. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote shown on the same row, so the borrowing can be checked against the thing borrowed from without leaving this page. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| second reading | alternatives | an independent re-reading of a facet, recorded whether or not it agrees |
| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
| unrecordable relation | unhoused_relations | a relation the paper asserts that this vocabulary cannot express, with the reason |
The reference list is not part of the text we hold for this paper. Our copy was extracted from the publisher's page and the bibliography did not survive that extraction, so the article below ends before its references. Nothing has been removed by us.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
John Cook , Dana Nuccitelli , Sarah A Green , Mark Richardson , Bärbel Winkler , Rob Painting , Robert Way , Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce
Published 15 May 2013 • © 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters , Volume 8 , Number 2 Citation John Cook et al 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024 DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
PDF Opens in a new tab.
Authors
John Cook AFFILIATIONS
Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, Australia
Skeptical Science, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
School of Psychology, University of Western Australia, Australia
j.cook3@uq.edu.au
Dana Nuccitelli AFFILIATIONS
Skeptical Science, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Tetra Tech, Incorporated, McClellan, CA, USA
Sarah A Green AFFILIATIONS
Department of Chemistry, Michigan Technological University, USA
Mark Richardson AFFILIATIONS
Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, UK
Bärbel Winkler AFFILIATIONS
Skeptical Science, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Rob Painting AFFILIATIONS
Skeptical Science, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Robert Way AFFILIATIONS
Department of Geography, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada
Peter Jacobs AFFILIATIONS
Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, USA
Andrew Skuce AFFILIATIONS
Skeptical Science, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Salt Spring Consulting Ltd, Salt Spring Island, BC, Canada
Article metrics
1519786 Total downloads 0 Video abstract views
Submit
Submit to this Journal
Share this article
Article information
Dates
Received 18 January 2013
Accepted 22 April 2013
Published 15 May 2013
Buy this article in print
Journal RSS
Sign up for new issue notifications
1748-9326/8/2/024024 Abstract
phenomenonconcepts↗alternativescontent_tagsWe analyze the evolution of the scientific content_tags↗consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, content_tagscontent_tags↗examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. limitationssensescontent_tagscontent_tagscontent_tagscontent_tags↗We find that 66.4% limitationsof abstracts expressed no position on AGW, content_tags32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. contributionclaim_typeconcepts↗content_tagscontent_tagscontent_tagscontent_tagsAmong abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed content_tags↗the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. mechanismscontrolsIn a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. limitationscontent_tagsCompared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). content_tagsAmong self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. content_tagsFor both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. alternativesOur analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
Export citation and abstract BibTeX RIS
Previous article in issue
Next article in issue
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence . Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Supplementary data
1. Introduction
concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationsconcept_edgesAn accurate perception of the degree of scientific consensus is an essential element to public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011 ). Communicating the scientific consensus also increases people’s acceptance that climate change (CC) is happening (Lewandowsky et al 2012 ). research_questionsensesclaim_relationsDespite numerous indicators of a consensus, there is wide public perception that climate scientists disagree over the fundamental cause of global warming (GW; Leiserowitz et al 2012 , Pew 2012 ). claim_relationsIn the most comprehensive analysis performed to date, we have extended the analysis of peer-reviewed climate papers in Oreskes ( 2004 ). We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).
sensesclaim_relationscontent_tagsSurveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97–98%) regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009 , Anderegg et al 2010 ). Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009 (Bray 2010 ). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution of recent GW (Houghton et al 1996 , 2001 , Solomon et al 2007 ).
sensesThe peer-reviewed scientific literature provides a ground-level assessment of the degree of consensus among publishing scientists. claim_relationscontent_tagsAn analysis of abstracts published from 1993–2003 matching the search ‘global climate change’ found that none of 928 papers disagreed with the consensus position on AGW (Oreskes 2004 ). This is consistent with an analysis of citation networks that found a consensus on AGW forming in the early 1990s (Shwed and Bearman 2010 ).
Despite these independent indicators of a scientific consensus, the perception of the US public is that the scientific community still disagrees over the fundamental cause of GW. alternativesFrom 1997 to 2007, public opinion polls have indicated around 60% of the US public believes there is significant disagreement among scientists about whether GW was happening (Nisbet and Myers 2007 ). Similarly, 57% of the US public either disagreed or were unaware that scientists agree that the earth is very likely warming due to human activity (Pew 2012 ).
object_of_studyThrough analysis of climate-related papers published from 1991 to 2011, this study provides the most comprehensive analysis of its kind to date in order to quantify and evaluate the level and evolution of consensus over the last two decades.
2. Methodology
concepts↗This letter was conceived as a ‘citizen science’ project by volunteers contributing to the Skeptical Science website ( www.skepticalscience.com ). concepts↗concepts↗In March 2012, we searched the ISI Web of Science for papers published from 1991–2011 using topic searches for ‘global warming’ or ‘global climate change’. controlsArticle type was restricted to ‘article’, excluding books, discussions, proceedings papers and other document types. The search was updated in May 2012 with papers added to the Web of Science up to that date.
method↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗sensessensessensesWe classified each abstract according to the type of research (category) and degree of endorsement. controlsWritten criteria were provided to raters for category (table 1 ) and level of endorsement of AGW (table 2 ). concepts↗content_tags↗Explicit endorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50% of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations).
Table 1. Definitions of each type of research category.
Category Description Example
(1) Impacts Effects and impacts of climate change on the environment, ecosystems or humanity ‘…global climate change together with increasing direct impacts of human activities, such as fisheries, are affecting the population dynamics of marine top predators’
(2) Methods Focus on measurements and modeling methods, or basic climate science not included in the other categories ‘This paper focuses on automating the task of estimating Polar ice thickness from airborne radar data…’
(3) Mitigation Research into lowering CO 2 emissions or atmospheric CO 2 levels ‘This paper presents a new approach for a nationally appropriate mitigation actions framework that can unlock the huge potential for greenhouse gas mitigation in dispersed energy end-use sectors in developing countries’
(4) Not climate-related Social science, education, research about people’s views on climate ‘This paper discusses the use of multimedia techniques and augmented reality tools to bring across the risks of global climate change’
(5) Opinion Not peer-reviewed articles ‘While the world argues about reducing global warming, chemical engineers are getting on with the technology. Charles Butcher has been finding out how to remove carbon dioxide from flue gas’
(6) Paleoclimate Examining climate during pre-industrial times ‘Here, we present a pollen-based quantitative temperature reconstruction from the midlatitudes of Australia that spans the last 135 000 years…’
Table 2. Definitions of each level of endorsement of AGW.
Level of endorsement Description Example
(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming ‘The global warming during the 20th century is caused mainly by increasing greenhouse gas concentration especially since the late 1980s’
(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact ‘Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change’
mechanisms(3) concepts↗sensesImplicit endorsement Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause ‘…carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change’
(4a) No position Does not address or mention the cause of global warming
(4b) Uncertain Expresses position that human’s role on recent global warming is uncertain/undefined ‘While the extent of human-induced global warming is inconclusive…’
(5) concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗sensessensessensesImplicit rejection Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming ‘…anywhere from a major portion to all of the warming of the 20th century could plausibly result from natural causes according to these results’
(6) Explicit rejection without quantification Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming ‘…the global temperature record provides little support for the catastrophic view of the greenhouse effect’
(7) Explicit rejection with quantification Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming ‘The human contribution to the CO 2 content in the atmosphere and the increase in temperature is negligible in comparison with other sources of carbon dioxide emission’
mechanisms↗concepts↗sensesAbstracts were randomly distributed via a web-based system to raters with only the title and abstract visible. All other information such as author names and affiliations, journal and publishing date were hidden. transfersconcepts↗Each abstract was categorized by two independent, anonymized raters. content_tagsA team of 12 individuals completed 97.4% (23 061) of the ratings; an additional 12 contributed the remaining 2.6% (607). limitationsconcepts↗concepts↗sensescontent_tagsInitially, 27% of category ratings and 33% of endorsement ratings disagreed. mechanisms↗Raters were then allowed to compare and justify or update their rating through the web system, while maintaining anonymity. content_tags↗Following this, 11% of category ratings and 16% of endorsement ratings disagreed; these were then resolved by a third party.
mechanisms↗content_tags↗Upon completion of the final ratings, a random sample of 1000 ‘No Position’ category abstracts were re-examined to differentiate those that did not express an opinion from those that take the position that the cause of GW is uncertain. concepts↗concepts↗concept_edgesAn ‘Uncertain’ abstract explicitly states that the cause of global warming is not yet determined (e.g., ‘…the extent of human-induced global warming is inconclusive…’) while a ‘No Position’ abstract makes no statement on AGW.
limitationsTo complement the abstract analysis, email addresses for 8547 authors were collected, typically from the corresponding author and/or first author. For each year, email addresses were obtained for at least 60% of papers. mechanisms↗concepts↗Authors were emailed an invitation to participate in a survey in which they rated their own published papers (the entire content of the article, not just the abstract) with the same criteria as used by the independent rating team. Details of the survey text are provided in the supplementary information (available at stacks.iop.org/ERL/8/024024/mmedia ).
3. Results
The ISI search generated 12 465 papers. Eliminating papers that were not peer-reviewed (186), not climate-related (288) or without an abstract (47) reduced the analysis to 11 944 papers written by 29 083 authors and published in 1980 journals. concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationssensesconcept_edgesconcept_edgesTo simplify the analysis, ratings were consolidated into three groups: endorsements (including implicit and explicit; categories 1–3 in table 2 ), no position (category 4) and rejections (including implicit and explicit; categories 5–7).
We examined four metrics to quantify the level of endorsement:
(1)
The percentage of endorsements/rejections/undecideds among all abstracts.
(2)
The percentage of endorsements/rejections/undecideds among only those abstracts expressing a position on AGW.
(3)
The percentage of scientists authoring endorsement/ rejection abstracts among all scientists.
(4)
The same percentage among only those scientists who expressed a position on AGW (table 3 ).
Table 3. Abstract ratings for each level of endorsement, shown as percentage and total number of papers.
Position % of all abstracts % among abstracts with AGW position (%) % of all authors % among authors with AGW position (%)
Endorse AGW 32.6% (3896) 97.1 34.8% (10 188) 98.4
No AGW position 66.4% (7930) — 64.6% (18 930) —
Reject AGW 0.7% (78) 1.9 0.4% (124) 1.2
Uncertain on AGW 0.3% (40) 1.0 0.2% (44) 0.4
3.1. Endorsement percentages from abstract ratings
Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.
The time series of each level of endorsement of the consensus on AGW was analyzed in terms of the number of abstracts (figure 1 (a)) and the percentage of abstracts (figure 1 (b)). content_tags↗content_tags↗content_tags↗Over time, the no position percentage has increased (simple linear regression trend 0.87% ± 0.28% yr −1 , 95% CI, R 2 = 0.66, p < 0.001) and the percentage of papers taking a position on AGW has equally decreased.
Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size
Figure 1. (a) Total number of abstracts categorized into endorsement, rejection and no position. (b) Percentage of endorsement, rejection and no position/undecided abstracts. Uncertain comprise 0.5% of no position abstracts.
Download figure:
Standard image High-resolution image The average numbers of authors per endorsement abstract (3.4) and per no position abstract (3.6) are both significantly larger than the average number of authors per rejection abstract (2.0). The scientists originated from 91 countries (identified by email address) with the highest representation from the USA ( N = 2548) followed by the United Kingdom ( N = 546), Germany ( N = 404) and Japan ( N = 379) (see supplementary table S1 for full list, available at stacks.iop.org/ERL/8/024024/mmedia ).
3.2. Endorsement percentages from self-ratings
We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate). After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors. The self-rated levels of endorsement are shown in table 4 . Among self-rated papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus. Among respondents who authored a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the consensus.
Table 4. Self-ratings for each level of endorsement, shown as percentage and total number of papers.
Position % of all papers % among papers with AGW position (%) % of respondents % among respondents with AGW position (%)
Endorse AGW a
62.7% (1342) 97.2 62.7% (746) 96.4
No AGW position b
35.5% (761) — 34.9% (415) —
Reject AGW c
1.8% (39) 2.8 2.4% (28) 3.6
a Self-rated papers that endorse AGW have an average endorsement rating less than 4 (1 =explicit endorsement with quantification, 7 = explicit rejection with quantification). b Undecided self-rated papers have an average rating equal to 4. c Rejection self-rated papers have an average rating greater than 4.
Figure 2 (a) shows the level of self-rated endorsement in terms of number of abstracts (the corollary to figure 1 (a)) and figure 2 (b) shows the percentage of abstracts (the corollary to figure 1 (b)). The percentage of self-rated rejection papers decreased (simple linear regression trend −0.25% ± 0.18% yr −1 , 95% CI, R 2 = 0.28, p = 0.01, figure 2 (b)). The time series of self-rated no position and consensus endorsement papers both show no clear trend over time.
Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size
Figure 2. (a) Total number of endorsement, rejection and no position papers as self-rated by authors. Year is the published year of each self-rated paper. (b) Percentage of self-rated endorsement, rejection and no position papers.
Download figure:
Standard image High-resolution image concepts↗A direct comparison of abstract rating versus self-rating endorsement levels for the 2142 papers that received a self-rating is shown in table 5 . More than half of the abstracts that we rated as ‘No Position’ or ‘Undecided’ were rated ‘Endorse AGW’ by the paper’s authors.
Table 5. Comparison of our abstract rating to self-rating for papers that received self-ratings.
Position Abstract rating Self-rating
Endorse AGW 791 (36.9%) 1342 (62.7%)
No AGW position or undecided 1339 (62.5%) 761 (35.5%)
Reject AGW 12 (0.6%) 39 (1.8%)
Figure 3 compares the percentage of papers endorsing the scientific consensus among all papers that express a position endorsing or rejecting the consensus. content_tags↗The year-to-year variability is larger in the self-ratings than in the abstract ratings due to the smaller sample sizes in the early 1990s. The percentage of AGW endorsements for both self-rating and abstract-rated papers increase marginally over time (simple linear regression trends 0.10 ± 0.09% yr −1 , 95% CI, R 2 = 0.20, p = 0.04 for abstracts, 0.35 ± 0.26% yr −1 , 95% CI, R 2 = 0.26, p = 0.02 for self-ratings), with both series approaching approximately 98% endorsements in 2011.
Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size
Figure 3. Percentage of papers endorsing the consensus among only papers that express a position endorsing or rejecting the consensus.
Download figure:
Standard image High-resolution image
4. Discussion
Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situations where scientists ‘ …generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees ’ (Oreskes 2007 , p 72). This explanation is also consistent with a description of consensus as a ‘spiral trajectory’ in which ‘ initially intense contestation generates rapid settlement and induces a spiral of new questions ’ (Shwed and Bearman 2010 ); the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics. This is supported by the fact that more than half of the self-rated endorsement papers did not express a position on AGW in their abstracts.
The self-ratings by the papers’ authors provide insight into the nature of the scientific consensus amongst publishing scientists. claim_relationsFor both self-ratings and our abstract ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time, consistent with Bray ( 2010 ) in finding a strengthening consensus.
4.1. Sources of uncertainty
limitationsconcepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗The process of determining the level of consensus in the peer-reviewed literature contains several sources of uncertainty, including the representativeness of the sample, lack of clarity in the abstracts and subjectivity in rating the abstracts.
We address the issue of representativeness by selecting the largest sample to date for this type of literature analysis. limitationsNevertheless, 11 944 papers is only a fraction of the climate literature. A Web of Science search for ‘climate change’ over the same period yields 43 548 papers, while a search for ‘climate’ yields 128 440 papers. The crowd-sourcing techniques employed in this analysis could be expanded to include more papers. This could facilitate an approach approximating the methods of Doran and Zimmerman ( 2009 ), which measured the level of scientific consensus for varying degrees of expertise in climate science. A similar approach could analyze the level of consensus among climate papers depending on their relevance to the attribution of GW.
concepts↗concepts↗sensesAnother potential area of uncertainty involved the text of the abstracts themselves. In some cases, ambiguous language made it difficult to ascertain the intended meaning of the authors. Naturally, a short abstract could not be expected to communicate all the details of the full paper. The implementation of the author self-rating process allowed us to look beyond the abstract. limitationsA comparison between self-ratings and abstract ratings revealed that categorization based on the abstract alone underestimates the percentage of papers taking a position on AGW.
limitationsLastly, some subjectivity is inherent in the abstract rating process. While criteria for determining ratings were defined prior to the rating period, some clarifications and amendments were required as specific situations presented themselves. concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationsunhoused_relationsunhoused_relationssensesTwo sources of rating bias can be cited: first, given that the raters themselves endorsed the scientific consensus on AGW, they may have been more likely to classify papers as sharing that endorsement. Second, scientific reticence (Hansen 2007 ) or ‘erring on the side of least drama’ (ESLD; Brysse et al 2012 ) may have exerted an opposite effect by biasing raters towards a ‘no position’ classification. concept_edgesThese sources of bias were partially addressed by the use of multiple independent raters and by comparing abstract rating results to author self-ratings. A comparison of author ratings of the full papers and abstract ratings reveals a bias toward an under-counting of endorsement papers in the abstract ratings (mean difference 0.6 in units of endorsement level). limitationsThis mitigated concerns about rater subjectivity, but suggests that scientific reticence and ESLD remain possible biases in the abstract ratings process. The potential impact of initial rating disagreements was also calculated and found to have minimal impact on the level of consensus (see supplemental information, section S1 available at stacks.iop.org/ERL/8/024024/mmedia ).
4.2. Comparisons with previous studies
Our sample encompasses those surveyed by Oreskes ( 2004 ) and Schulte ( 2008 ) and we can therefore directly compare the results. Oreskes ( 2004 ) analyzed 928 papers from 1993 to 2003. Over the same period, we found 932 papers matching the search phrase ‘global climate change’ (papers continue to be added to the ISI database). From that subset we eliminated 38 papers that were not peer-reviewed, climate-related or had no abstract. claim_relationsOf the remaining 894, none rejected the consensus, consistent with Oreskes’ result. Oreskes determined that 75% of papers endorsed the consensus, based on the assumption that mitigation and impact papers implicitly endorse the consensus. By comparison, we found that 28% of the 894 abstracts endorsed AGW while 72% expressed no position. Among the 71 papers that received self-ratings from authors, 69% endorse AGW, comparable to Oreskes’ estimate of 75% endorsements.
An analysis of 539 ‘global climate change’ abstracts from the Web of Science database over January 2004 to mid-February 2007 found 45% endorsement and 6% rejection (Schulte 2008 ). Our analysis over a similar period (including all of February 2007) produced 529 papers—the reason for this discrepancy is unclear as Schulte’s exact methodology is not provided. Schulte estimated a higher percentage of endorsements and rejections, possibly because the strict methodology we adopted led to a greater number of ‘No Position’ abstracts. claim_relationsclaim_relationsSchulte also found a significantly greater number of rejection papers, including 6 explicit rejections compared to our 0 explicit rejections. See the supplementary information (available at stacks.iop.org/ERL/8/024024/mmedia ) for a tabulated comparison of results. Among 58 self-rated papers, only one (1.7%) rejected AGW in this sample. Over the period of January 2004 to February 2007, among ‘global climate change’ papers that state a position on AGW, we found 97% endorsements.
5. Conclusion
The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011 ). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012 ).
concepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationssensesContributing to this ‘consensus gap’ are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to ‘ reposition global warming as theory (not fact) ’. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010 ). concepts↗concepts↗sensesconcept_edgesThe situation is exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue, where the normative practice of providing opposing sides with equal attention has allowed a vocal minority to have their views amplified (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004 ). While there are indications that the situation has improved in the UK and USA prestige press (Boykoff 2007 ), the UK tabloid press showed no indication of improvement from 2000 to 2006 (Boykoff and Mansfield 2008 ).
The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is ‘ …on the point of collapse ’ (Oddie 2012 ) while ‘ …the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year ’ (Allègre et al 2012 ). concepts↗concepts↗sensesA systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to James Powell for his invaluable contribution to this analysis, Stephan Lewandowsky for his comments and to those who assisted with collecting email addresses and rating abstracts: Ari Jokimäki, Riccardo Reitano, Rob Honeycutt, Wendy Cook, Phil Scadden, Glenn Tamblyn, Anne-Marie Blackburn, John Hartz, Steve Brown, George Morrison, Alexander C Coulter, Martin B Stolpe (to name just those who are not listed as (co-)author to this paper).
Show
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; 5 of 6 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | The position taken on anthropogenic global warming by 11,944 peer-reviewed climate abstracts published between 1991 and 2011. | object_of_study | the paper's words | |
| research_question | The public believes climate scientists are split - what proportion of the literature that takes a position on the cause of warming actually endorses the human one? | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | 97.1% of abstracts stating a position endorse anthropogenic warming, confirmed at 97.2% by an independent author self-rating arm. | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | existence | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | corpus-analysis also in: corpus-analysis | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms | mechanisms[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | mechanisms | mechanisms[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | mechanisms | mechanisms[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | mechanisms | mechanisms[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | THE SAME PAPERS, TWO RATERS, TWO ANSWERS - AND THE SECOND RATER IS THE AUTHOR: `In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%)` against 66.4% by abstract rating. WHETHER A PAPER TAKES A POSITION DEPENDS ON WHO IS READING IT, and this paper measures the gap rather than choosing a side. | mechanisms[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND `ENDORSEMENT` IS OPERATIONALISED WITH AN INFERENCE STEP BUILT INTO THE CATEGORY: level `(3) IMPLICIT ENDORSEMENT - IMPLIES humans are causing global warming. E.g., RESEARCH ASSUMES greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause.` A paper counts as endorsing when the rater judges that it assumes the conclusion, so the construct deliberately includes what an abstract does not say. | mechanisms[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | most abstracts expressed no position; the 97% figure is computed among those that did what this limits: the 97% figure: it is computed among abstracts that took a position, and most ABSTRACTS EXPRESSED NO POSITION ON AGW | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Three named sources of uncertainty: sample representativeness, ambiguous abstract wording, and rater subjectivity. what this limits: the consensus estimate: THE PROCESS CONTAINS SEVERAL SOURCES OF UNCERTAINTY, INCLUDING THE REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE SAMPLE, LACK OF CLARITY IN THE ABSTRACTS AND SUBJECTIVITY | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The sample, though the largest of its kind, covers only part of the climate literature. what this limits: the coverage claim: 11 944 PAPERS IS ONLY A FRACTION OF THE CLIMATE LITERATURE | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Rating abstracts is inherently partly subjective. what this limits: every rating in the study: SOME SUBJECTIVITY IS INHERENT IN THE ABSTRACT RATING PROCESS | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Scientific reticence and 'erring on the side of least drama' may still bias abstract ratings towards 'no position'. what this limits: the abstract ratings: SCIENTIFIC RETICENCE AND ESLD REMAIN POSSIBLE BIASES IN THE ABSTRACT RATINGS PROCESS, in the direction of 'no position' | limitations[4] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Rating abstracts alone undercounts papers that actually take a position. what this limits: any count of papers taking a position: CATEGORIZATION BASED ON THE ABSTRACT ALONE UNDERESTIMATES THE PERCENTAGE OF PAPERS TAKING A POSITION ON AGW | limitations[5] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Initial inter-rater disagreement was substantial - 27% on category and 33% on endorsement - so the headline figure depends on the reconciliation procedure, not on raw agreement. what this limits: the reliability of the ratings the result rests on: INITIALLY, 27% OF CATEGORY RATINGS AND 33% OF ENDORSEMENT RATINGS DISAGREED | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Two thirds of abstracts take no position at all, so the 97.1% is a proportion of the third that do. what this limits: the denominator of the headline percentage: 66.4% OF ABSTRACTS EXPRESSED NO POSITION ON AGW, 32.6% ENDORSED AGW, 0.7% REJECTED AGW AND 0.3% WERE UNCERTAIN - so the consensus figure is among the abstracts that took a position, as the paper states | limitations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The abstract is a proxy for the paper: the self-rating arm found fewer papers taking no position (35.5% against 66.4%), which is the size of what abstract-level coding misses. what this limits: the same scope as limitations[5], with both numbers: A SMALLER PERCENTAGE OF SELF-RATED PAPERS EXPRESSED NO POSITION ON AGW (35.5%) than the 66.4% found by abstract rating | limitations[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Response is partial and self-selected: email addresses were obtainable for at least 60% of papers per year, and authors chose whether to reply. what this limits: the self-rating arm specifically: EMAIL ADDRESSES FOR 8547 AUTHORS WERE COLLECTED, so the responding sample is partial and self-selected | limitations[9] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | a content-analysis coding methodology (independent raters categorizing texts) applied to quantify the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming | transfers[0] | the tagger's words | |
| controls | a second phase in which the authors of the papers were invited to rate their own abstracts, alongside the volunteer raters eliminates: the consensus figure being a property of how the volunteers read the abstracts - the authors know what their own papers claimed, and their ratings are an independent check no coding protocol can supply · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| controls | written criteria supplied to the raters for both the category and the level of endorsement of anthropogenic global warming eliminates: each rater applying a private standard - the criteria are fixed and written before the rating rather than settled case by case · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[1] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the article type restricted to 'article', excluding books, discussions, proceedings papers and other document types eliminates: a consensus measured over documents that are not research reports at all · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[2] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | scientific consensus also in: scientific consensus | concepts[0] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | anthropogenic global warming also in: anthropogenic global warming | concepts[1] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | endorsement also in: endorsement | concepts[4] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | No Position also in: No Position | concepts[5] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Uncertain also in: Uncertain | concepts[6] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | self-rating also in: self-rating | concepts[7] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | raters also in: raters | concepts[8] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | citizen science also in: citizen science | concepts[9] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Communicating the scientific consensus | concepts[10] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | people’s acceptance also in: people’s acceptance | concepts[11] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | public support for climate policy also in: public support for climate policy | concepts[12] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | ISI Web of Science also in: ISI Web of Science | concepts[13] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | topic searches also in: topic searches | concepts[14] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | research category also in: research category | concepts[15] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | degree of endorsement also in: degree of endorsement | concepts[16] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Explicit endorsement with quantification | concepts[17] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Explicit endorsement without quantification | concepts[18] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Implicit endorsement also in: Implicit endorsement | concepts[19] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Implicit rejection also in: Implicit rejection | concepts[20] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Explicit rejection without quantification | concepts[21] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Explicit rejection with quantification | concepts[22] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | web-based system also in: web-based system | concepts[23] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | rating disagreements also in: rating disagreements | concepts[24] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | third party also in: third party | concepts[25] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | four metrics also in: four metrics | concepts[26] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | endorsements also in: endorsements | concepts[27] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | rejections also in: rejections | concepts[28] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | abstract rating also in: abstract rating | concepts[29] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | sources of uncertainty also in: sources of uncertainty | concepts[30] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | representativeness of the sample also in: representativeness of the sample | concepts[31] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | lack of clarity in the abstracts also in: lack of clarity in the abstracts | concepts[32] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | subjectivity in rating the abstracts also in: subjectivity in rating the abstracts | concepts[33] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | categorization based on the abstract alone | concepts[34] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | percentage of papers taking a position on AGW | concepts[35] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | rating bias also in: rating bias | concepts[36] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | raters themselves endorsed the scientific consensus on AGW | concepts[37] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| concepts | scientific reticence also in: scientific reticence | concepts[38] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | erring on the side of least drama also in: erring on the side of least drama | concepts[39] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | ‘no position’ classification also in: ‘no position’ classification | concepts[40] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | consensus gap also in: consensus gap | concepts[41] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | campaigns designed to confuse the public | concepts[42] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | opposing sides with equal attention also in: opposing sides with equal attention | concepts[43] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | vocal minority also in: vocal minority | concepts[44] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | systematic, comprehensive review of the literature | concepts[45] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | quantitative evidence also in: quantitative evidence | concepts[46] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| unhoused_relations | accurate perception of the degree of scientific consensus → public support for climate policy Accurate consensus perception is presented as prerequisite for public support; prerequisite-for is not in the eight-type registry. | unhoused_relations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | four metrics → degree of endorsement The four metrics quantify endorsement level; quantifies is not in the eight-type registry. | unhoused_relations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | ESLD → erring on the side of least drama ESLD expands to erring on the side of least drama; acronym-expansion is not in the eight-type registry. | unhoused_relations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | raters themselves endorsed the scientific consensus on AGW → rating bias Raters’ own endorsement may bias classification toward shared endorsement; biases-toward is not in the eight-type registry. | unhoused_relations[3] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | scientific reticence → ‘no position’ classification Scientific reticence may bias ratings toward no position; biases-toward is not in the eight-type registry. | unhoused_relations[4] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | campaigns designed to confuse the public → consensus gap Public-confusion campaigns contribute to the consensus gap; contributes-to is not in the eight-type registry. | unhoused_relations[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | consensus - as measured in the literature: the share of papers taking a position that endorse one explanation | senses[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | consensus - as measured by asking scientists directly, which earlier surveys put at 97–98% | senses[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | consensus - as perceived by the public, which is that scientists disagree, and which the paper treats as the thing to be corrected | senses[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `the 97% consensus` - A NUMBER MADE BY A DENOMINATOR CHOICE, AND THE PAPER PRINTS BOTH: `66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW ... Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position.` The famous figure is computed on the third of the sample that took a position; two thirds are excluded BY DEFINITION, not by data. | senses[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Degree of endorsement - seven-level code ranging from explicit quantified endorsement through no position to explicit quantified rejection | senses[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Explicit quantified endorsement - statement that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming | senses[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Explicit unquantified endorsement - statement of human causation without a percentage contribution | senses[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Implicit endorsement - assumed human causation even when the abstract does not state it explicitly | senses[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Implicit rejection - natural-main-cause implication that minimizes human impact | senses[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Explicit unquantified rejection - explicit minimization or rejection of human causation | senses[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Explicit quantified rejection - claim that humans caused less than half of global warming | senses[10] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Blind abstract rating - web-distributed title and abstract with author, affiliation, journal, and date hidden | senses[11] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Rating reconciliation - anonymous comparison and revision followed by third-party adjudication | senses[12] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Four endorsement metrics - shares among all papers, positioned papers, all scientists, and positioned scientists | senses[13] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Abstract-only categorization - method that underestimates how many full papers take an AGW position | senses[14] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Scientific reticence / least-drama bias - possible pressure toward a no-position abstract classification | senses[15] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Consensus gap - public under-perception of overwhelming scientific agreement on human-caused warming | senses[16] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Equal-attention media norm - opposing-side balance that amplifies a vocal minority | senses[17] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Systematic literature review - quantitative counter-evidence to claims that scientific rejection is growing | senses[18] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | claim_type: existence a second reading reaching the same value. Recorded: existence — note: a second reading reaching the same value from a different sentence. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.claim_type | the tagger's words | |
| alternatives | method: corpus-analysis a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: corpus-analysis — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.method | the tagger's words | |
| alternatives | phenomenon: the gap between the level of scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming and the public perception of it a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.phenomenon | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | extends → Oreskes (2004), analysis of peer-reviewed climate papers | claim_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | replicates → Oreskes (2004), the finding that no papers in the 1993-2003 sample reject the consensus | claim_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED (RETRACTED AND RE-ADDED WITH THE QUANTITY CORRECTED) · contradicts → Schulte (2008), which reported 6% rejection among 2004-2007 abstracts WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED: RETRACTED AND RE-ADDED WITH THE QUANTITY CORRECTED. The target said Schulte 'REPORTED 6% REJECTION'. The span says 'Schulte also found a significantly greater number of rejection papers, including 6 EXPLICIT REJECTIONS compared to our 0 explicit rejections.' A COUNT IS NOT A RATE. Recorded in the paper that is already this corpus's example of a denominator that does not travel - the neighbouring field in the same record carried the error. | claim_relations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | replicates → Bray (2010), the finding of a strengthening consensus over time | claim_relations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | extends → Oreskes (2004), which found no disagreeing papers among 928 abstracts | claim_relations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | replicates → direct surveys of climate scientists reporting 97–98% agreement | claim_relations[5] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | contradicts → the public perception that climate scientists disagree about the cause of warming | claim_relations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | contradicts → Schulte (2008), which reported 6 explicit rejections among 2004-2007 abstracts differs in: THE AXIS IS THE COUNT OF EXPLICIT REJECTIONS, AND BOTH COUNTS ARE GIVEN. 'Schulte also found a significantly greater number of rejection papers, including 6 explicit rejections compared to our 0 explicit rejections.' Six against zero, over overlapping literatures - so the disagreement is about what counts as an explicit rejection, not about how many papers exist. This row's target was repaired earlier today: it had said '6% rejection' where the paper says SIX PAPERS. | claim_relations[7] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | No Position —distinct-from→ Uncertain the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · the relation stated: Uncertain states the cause is not yet determined; No Position states nothing at all also in: No Position · Uncertain | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · self-rating —contrasted-with→ raters EVIDENCE CORRECTED: RE-GROUNDED. The old span named neither 'self-rating' nor 'raters'. This sentence names both and states the comparison the edge records - and states it as a partial answer to bias, which is the paper's own framing. — strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but abstract ratings were compared with author self-ratings; contrasted-with is loose. also in: self-rating · raters | concept_edges[2] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | Communicating the scientific consensus —causes→ people’s acceptance direction on the measure: increases · the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: The paper states that communicating consensus increases acceptance. | concept_edges[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | Implicit endorsement —part-of→ endorsements the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: The consolidation explicitly includes implicit and explicit categories within endorsements.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'endorsements (including implicit and explicit ...)', not 'implicit endorsement'. also in: Implicit endorsement · endorsements | concept_edges[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | Implicit rejection —part-of→ rejections the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: The consolidation explicitly includes implicit and explicit categories within rejections.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'rejections (including implicit and explicit ...)', not 'implicit rejection'. also in: Implicit rejection · rejections | concept_edges[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | opposing sides with equal attention —causes→ vocal minority direction on the measure: increases · the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: The media norm is said to have allowed amplification of the minority’s views.
Audit 2026-09-29: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says equal attention allowed a vocal minority to have their VIEWS amplified; 'vocal minority' is the wrong object. | concept_edges[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 97.1% — share of position-taking abstracts endorsing that humans cause global warming | content_tags.quantities[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 11,944 — peer-reviewed climate abstracts examined (1991-2011) about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.quantities[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 66.4% — share of abstracts expressing NO position on AGW | content_tags.quantities[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 32.6% / 0.7% / 0.3% — abstracts endorsing / rejecting / uncertain on AGW | content_tags.quantities[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 11 944 abstracts, 1991–2011 — size and span of the rated corpus | content_tags.quantities[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 97.1% / 97.2% — endorsement among abstracts, and among self-rated papers, that take a position | content_tags.quantities[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 66.4% / 32.6% / 0.7% / 0.3% — no position / endorse / reject / uncertain, across all abstracts | content_tags.quantities[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 27% and 33% initial disagreement; 11% and 16% after reconciliation — inter-rater disagreement on category and on endorsement, before and after raters compared ratings | content_tags.quantities[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 23 061 ratings by 12 people — 97.4% of all ratings came from a team of twelve | content_tags.quantities[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 97–98% — agreement on AGW found by earlier direct surveys of publishing climate experts WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: ing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009 , Anderegg et al 2010 ). - THE RESULT IS THE CITED WORK'S AND THE CITATION TRAILS THE SENTENCE. A plain noun phrase is the subject of the result verb and the attribution is a bracket at the end - 'Neurons within the dorsal temporal pole demonstrated match suppression ... ( Ng et al., 2014 )'. Neither of my two cues could see this shape, so THESE WERE READ RATHER THAN SWEPT: 36 candidates of the shape, 20 read, 11 marked, 9 refused. THE REFUSALS ARE WHY IT IS NOT A CUE: 'Aru2012 findings[16]' is the paper's OWN result with a citation supporting the localisation, 'Natan2015 findings[3]' ends 'consistent with previous findings ( Szymanski et al., 2009 )' where the main clause is the paper's, and 'Drieu2019' x3 are 'One cannot entirely rule out...' - a limitation, not an attribution. About 55% precise, which is a list to read and not a sweep to run. | content_tags.quantities[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus that humans are causing global warming. | content_tags.findings[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | For both abstract ratings and author self-ratings, the share of endorsements among papers expressing a position marginally increased over time. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.findings[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Of abstracts taking any position, 97.1% endorse human-caused warming. | content_tags.findings[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Authors rating their own full papers reached essentially the same figure, 97.2%, by a different route. | content_tags.findings[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | The dominant category is silence: two thirds of abstracts state no position on the cause at all. | content_tags.findings[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | A smaller share of self-rated papers (35.5%) than of abstract ratings expressed no position on AGW. | content_tags.findings[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | The finding agrees with the earlier Oreskes analysis, which found no disagreeing papers among 928. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: 8 papers disagreed with the consensus position on AGW (Oreskes 2004 ). - THE RESULT IS THE CITED WORK'S AND THE CITATION TRAILS THE SENTENCE. A plain noun phrase is the subject of the result verb and the attribution is a bracket at the end - 'Neurons within the dorsal temporal pole demonstrated match suppression ... ( Ng et al., 2014 )'. Neither of my two cues could see this shape, so THESE WERE READ RATHER THAN SWEPT: 36 candidates of the shape, 20 read, 11 marked, 9 refused. THE REFUSALS ARE WHY IT IS NOT A CUE: 'Aru2012 findings[16]' is the paper's OWN result with a citation supporting the localisation, 'Natan2015 findings[3]' ends 'consistent with previous findings ( Szymanski et al., 2009 )' where the main clause is the paper's, and 'Drieu2019' x3 are 'One cannot entirely rule out...' - a limitation, not an attribution. About 55% precise, which is a list to read and not a sweep to run. | content_tags.findings[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | climate abstracts about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: climate abstracts | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | AGW also in: AGW | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | consensus position also in: consensus position | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | explicit endorsement also in: explicit endorsement | content_tags.definitions[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | confidence-interval about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: confidence-interval | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | p-value about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: p-value | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | regression about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: regression | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | sample-size also in: sample-size | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | inter-rater-reliability also in: inter-rater-reliability | content_tags.statistics[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | proportion also in: proportion | content_tags.statistics[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | random-sampling also in: random-sampling | content_tags.statistics[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.