Does It Matter if the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Is 97% or 99.99%?

Skuce, Andrew G.; Cook, John; Richardson, Mark; Winkler, Bärbel; Rice, Ken; Green, Sarah; Jacobs, Peter; Nuccitelli, Dana

doi:10.1177/0270467617702781

Cited by 22 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Science as an activity is among the most trustworthy and reliable of institutions, but citizens question the credibility of certain scientific information even when widespread agreement exists. Despite scientific consensus, the credibility of scientific claims or results, such as global warming, is sometimes disputed (Skuce et al, 2016). This paradox leads to analysis of whether the credibility of scientific information related to climate change varies depending on the source of communication.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The credibility of scientific communication sources regarding climate change: A population-based survey experiment

Sanz‐Menéndez

Cruz‐Castro

2019

Public Underst Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyses whether different institutional sources of scientific information have an impact on its credibility. Through a population-based survey experiment of a national representative sample of the Spanish public, we measure the credibility that citizens attribute to scientific information on the evolution of CO2 emissions disclosed by different institutional sources (business associations, government, non-government environmental organisations, international bodies and national research institutions). The findings show that an institutional credibility gap exists in science communication. We also investigate the factors accounting for the credibility of the different institutional sources by examining variables related to knowledge, interest, trust, reputation, deference, attitudes, values and personal characteristics. Exploratory regression analyses reveal that identical variables can produce different effects on the credibility of scientific information, depending on the institutional source to which it is attributed.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The credibility of scientific communication sources regarding climate change: A population-based survey experiment

Sanz‐Menéndez

Cruz‐Castro

2019

Public Underst Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, at least from the methodological perspective, it is equivalently unlikely that all neutral papers support the consensus. This inherent bias is not special to the work of Lynas et al, and in fact, many consensus studies take this route, as was discussed, e.g., by the authors of [6,7]. The justification for this methodology was that it is not reasonable that scientists working in a scientific field in which a certain paradigm prevails would disagree with this paradigm, and that disagreement with a prevailing paradigm must be expressed via an explicit rejection of the paradigm.…”

Section: The Lynas Et Al Methodology and No-position Papersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ninety-Nine Percent? Re-Examining the Consensus on the Anthropogenic Contribution to Climate Change

Dentelski,

Damari,

Marmor

et al. 2023

Climate

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anthropogenic activity is considered a central driver of current climate change. A recent paper, studying the consensus regarding the hypothesis that the recent increase in global temperature is predominantly human-made via the emission of greenhouse gasses (see text for reference), argued that the scientific consensus in the peer-reviewed scientific literature pertaining to this hypothesis exceeds 99%. This conclusion was reached after the authors scanned the abstracts and titles of some 3000 papers and mapped them according to their (abstract) statements regarding the above hypothesis. Here, we point out some major flaws in the methodology, analysis, and conclusions of the study. Using the data provided in the study, we show that the 99% consensus, as defined by the authors, is actually an upper limit evaluation because of the large number of “neutral” papers which were counted as pro-consensus in the paper and probably does not reflect the true situation. We further analyze these results by evaluating how so-called “skeptic” papers fit the consensus and find that biases in the literature, which were not accounted for in the aforementioned study, may place the consensus on the low side. Finally, we show that the rating method used in the study suffers from a subjective bias which is reflected in large variations between ratings of the same paper by different raters. All these lead to the conclusion that the conclusions of the study does not follow from the data.

show abstract

“…Cook et al (2013) are notable in this context for systemizing consensus messaging around a quantitative measure, for shaping subsequent research and advocacy efforts, and for gaining wide attention. Current debate takes their study as a point of departure in refining methodological questions (Cook et al, 2014;Skuce et al, 2016), optimizing consensus messaging as a communication strategy (van der Linden et al, 2014), and seeking empirical evidence of its effectiveness in shifting public opinion (Ding et al, 2011;McCright et al, 2013;Maibach et al, 2014;van der Linden et al, 2015;Cook and Lewandowsky, 2016;Deryugina and Shurchkov, 2016).…”

Section: Consensus Messaging: Approach and Strategymentioning

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

Does It Matter if the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Is 97% or 99.99%?

Cited by 22 publications

References 30 publications

The credibility of scientific communication sources regarding climate change: A population-based survey experiment

The credibility of scientific communication sources regarding climate change: A population-based survey experiment

Ninety-Nine Percent? Re-Examining the Consensus on the Anthropogenic Contribution to Climate Change

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About