Reply to ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature: A re-analysis’

Cook, John; Nuccitelli, Dana; Skuce, Andrew G.; Jacobs, Peter; Painting, Rob; Honeycutt, R. C.; Green, Sarah; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Richardson, Mark; Way, Robert G.

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2014.06.002

Cited by 21 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The problem may lie in the methodology of Cook et al (2013)-although earlier papers are not above criticism either (Peiser 2005, Duarte 2014). Reusswig (2013) praises Cook et al but Legates et al (2015) and Tol (2014a) question its data and methodology (Bedford and Cook 2013, Cook et al 2014a, Tol 2014b). Dean (2015) notes that the paper omits inter-rater reliability tests.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Tol

2016

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Tol

2016

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Tol (2014) disagrees and has reservations to the way how Cook et al (2013) select papers for their survey. Cook et al (2014), in turn, disagree with the response of Tol (2014) and point out several alleged mistakes in Tol's arguments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Selective Reporting and the Social Cost of Carbon

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. We examine potential selective reporting in the literature on the social cost of carbon (SCC) by conducting a meta-analysis of 809 estimates of the SCC reported in 101 studies. Our results indicate that estimates for which the 95% con_dence interval includes zero are less likely to be reported than estimates excluding negative values of the SCC, which creates an upward bias in the literature. The evidence for selective reporting is stronger for studies published in peer-reviewed journals than for unpublished papers. We show that the _ndings are not driven by the asymmetry of con_dence intervals surrounding the SCC nd are robust to controlling for various characteristics of study design and to alternative de_nitions of con_dence intervals. Our estimates of the mean reported SCC corrected for the selective reporting bias are imprecise and range between 0 and 130 USD per ton of carbon in 2010 prices for emission year 2015. Terms of use: Documents in

show abstract

“…the nature of the Earth’s orbit around the sun) 58 , let alone the very specific scientific domains (as mentioned above: trace gas atmospheric chemistry - and so on) that form the scientific basis of climate change – leaving many lay-people unaware of the extraordinarily robust body of data (correlations, models and projections) and overwhelming evidence (proxy to empirical) of a human-induced climatic change. Nor is there a strong understanding in the public domain of the scientific consensus in relation to this issue– with 97% of climate scientists providing evidence of anthropogenic climate change 59–61 . A recent study by the Pew Research Center in the USA (Politics of Climate Change, 2016), for example, indicated that although 50% of Liberal Democrats believed there was a scientific consensus on climate change, only 16% of conservative Republicans were of the same opinion – representing the strong gap between the public perceptions of, and the real, scientific consensus.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Opinions of 12 to 13-year-olds in Austria and Australia on the worry, cause and imminence of Climate Change

Harker-Schuch

Mills

Lade

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

6 Although we are in the third decade of climate science communication as a discipline, and there is 7 overwhelming scientific consensus and physical evidence for climate change, the general public continues to 8 wrestle with climate change policy and advocacy. Early adolescence (12 to 13 years old) is a critical but 9 under-researched demographic for the formation of attitudes related to climate change. This paper presents 10 opinions on the worry, cause, and imminence of climate change that were collected from n=463 1 st year 11 secondary school students (12-13 years old) in public secondary schools in inner-urban centres in Austria 12 and Australia. Overall, 86.83% of eligible respondents agreed that climate change was probably or 13 definitely something we should worry about, 80.33% agreed that climate change was probably or definitely 14 caused by humans, and 83.17% agreed that climate change was probably or definitely something that was 15 happening now. The respondents' opinions were also compared to their respective adult population, with 16 Australian 12-13 year olds showing strong positive climate-friendly attitudes, both in comparison to their 17 adult population, and to their Austrian peers. In addition, although the opinions of Austrian 12-13 year olds 18 were quite high, they did not reflect the higher climate-friendly opinions of their adult community. Our 19 results suggest that socio-cultural worldview or socio-cultural cognition theory may not have the influence 20 on this age group as it does on the respective adult population -and, if they are affected, there are attitudes 21 or factors in this age group which resist the opinion-influence from their mature community. These findings 22 are significant as early adolescents may be pivotal in the climate science communication arena and 23 investigating their opinions with regard to climate change may offer an unexplored and under-utilised target 24 for future communication efforts and climate literacy programmes. 25 2 46 knowledge, 6) the wicked nature of climate change and, lastly, 7) a lack of certainty 19,20 with regard to the 47 scientific consensus or trust in the findings from the scientific community.48 Navigating 1) worldview is, perhaps, the most pernicious challenge to overcome as it involves the 49 individual's idiosyncratic belief system and their attachment to social, political and cultural networks 11,21 . 50 Worldview is a factor known to not only prevent, but to inoculate an individual from re-assessing existing 51 opinions or idiosyncratic belief systems 22,23 . Attempts to promote re-assessment of beliefs can lead to an 52 individual entrenching their opinion more firmly and undermining further communication efforts 2 .53 In addition to worldview, a great deal of 2) misinformation is generated both when lay-people attempt to 54 rationalise and organise the information they are given or search for 24 , as well as misinformation that is 55 created by groups or industries that are threatened by a well-informed general public 10,[2...

show abstract

Reply to ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature: A re-analysis’

Cited by 21 publications

References 5 publications

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

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

Selective Reporting and the Social Cost of Carbon

Opinions of 12 to 13-year-olds in Austria and Australia on the worry, cause and imminence of Climate Change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About