Comment on ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature’

Tol, Richard S.J.

doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001

Cited by 20 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(33 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Here we summarize studies that quantify expert views and examine common flaws in criticisms of consensus estimates. In particular, we are responding to a comment by Tol (2016) on Cook et al (2013, referred to as C13). We show that contrary to Tol's claim that the results of C13 differ from earlier studies, the consensus of experts is robust across all the studies conducted by coauthors of this correspondence.…”

Section: Introductioncontrasting

(Expert classified)

“…Eliminating less published scientists from both these samples resulted in consensus values of 90% and 97%-98% for Verheggen et al (2014) and Anderegg et al (2010), respectively. Tol's (2016) conflation of unrepresentative non-expert sub-samples and samples of climate experts is a misrepresentation of the results of previous studies, including those published by a number of coauthors of this paper.…”

Section: Interpreting Consensus Datacontrasting

(Expert classified)

“…As shown in table 1, low estimates of consensus arise from samples that include non-experts such as scientists (or non-scientists) who are not actively publishing climate research, while samples of experts are consistent in showing overwhelming consensus. Tol (2016) reports consensus estimates ranging from 7% to 100% from the same studies described above. His broad range is due to sub-groupings of scientists with different levels of expertise.…”

Section: Interpreting Consensus Datamentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Taking a conservative approach, C13 omitted abstracts that did not state a position on AGW to derive its consensus estimate of 97%; a value shown to be robust when compared with the estimate derived from author responses. In contrast, in one analysis, Tol (2016) effectively treats no-position abstracts as rejecting AGW, thereby deriving consensus values less than 35%. Equating no-position papers with rejection or an uncertain position on AGW is inconsistent with the expectation of decreasing reference to a consensual position as that consensus strengthens (Oreskes 2007, Shwed andBearman 2010).…”

Section: Interpreting Consensus Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming

Cook

Орескес

Doran

et al. 2016

Environ. Res. Lett.

1,023

462

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%-100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N=2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of nonexperts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent nonendorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

show abstract

Section: Introductioncontrasting

(Expert classified)

Section: Interpreting Consensus Datacontrasting

(Expert classified)

Section: Interpreting Consensus Datamentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Interpreting Consensus Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming

Cook

Орескес

Doran

et al. 2016

Environ. Res. Lett.

1,023

462

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These differences encourage critics to question the rigor with which Cook et al (2013) carried out their study, most notably Tol (2014Tol ( , 2016. In brief, Tol suggests the enumerated consensus is too high and an artifact of methodology, not an accurate reflection of the scientific community.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The “Danger” of Consensus Messaging: Or, Why to Shift From Skeptic-First to Migration-First Approaches

Russill

2018

Front. Commun.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consensus messaging is a climate change communication strategy emphasizing the fact of scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Its proponents encourage scientists, journalists, and educators to transmit consensus messages in hopes of improving public climate literacy. Critics of this approach question its methodology for determining consensus and its effectiveness as a strategy for improving public understanding and policymaking. I review these debates to determine what is at stake in disagreements over consensus messaging and suggest that issues of climate change danger are addressed too narrowly when the expectations, style and categories of consensus messaging are dominant. I recommend that "migration-first" approaches displace the priority of "skeptic-first" approaches to climate change communication, and that scholars begin asking what is owed to those most affected by climate change danger.Keywords: climate change communication, cultural cognition, environmental humanities, risk communication, climate change refugees, climate change policy, environmental politics, migration Climate change communication is an intensely contested terrain. As a growing object of scholarly interest, proposals to reshape its usual practices have proliferated rapidly and sharpened differences among experts regarding the nature and purposes of public communication on climate change. These disputes reflect differences in how communication is conceptualized among the disciplines (psychology, sociological, political science, cognitive science, communication, and media studies, etc.), how it works in various sites (science communication, intergovernmental negotiating, social marketing, social movements, risk communication, local politics, etc.) and what it is expected to do (combat skeptics, support mitigation polices, explore adaptation opportunities). Arguably, these disputes are symptomatic of a growing dissatisfaction with the conceptual narrowness of climate change communication given the expanding range of contexts, circumstances, and concerns it must address. In some cases, scholars are calling for agonistic approaches to reshape politics and public life through climate change communication (Carvalho and Peterson, 2012;Machin, 2013).In this article, I address scholarly debates about "consensus messaging" to discuss current limitations in climate change communication. While these debates often turn on how the purposes and goals of climate change communication are understood, they illustrate the narrow origins, limited intentions and general ineffectiveness of the field. Alternative approaches, I suggest, should reckon directly with the legacy and deeper implications of consensus messaging for climate change communication, not lament its popularity, dismiss its assumptions or ignore its influence.

show abstract

Post-Truth Ruminations

Block

2018

Post-Truth and Political Discourse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comment on ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature’

Cited by 20 publications

References 25 publications

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming

The “Danger” of Consensus Messaging: Or, Why to Shift From Skeptic-First to Migration-First Approaches

Post-Truth Ruminations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About