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.

Populations of large carnivores are declining globally, and analysis of public discourse about carnivores is useful for understanding public opinion and influences on management and policy. Portrayal of carnivores in the media affects public perceptions and support for their conservation. We conducted a content analysis of 513 articles about Florida panthers (Puma concolor coryi) published from 2003 to 2006 in newspapers with local circulation in core panther habitat in southwest Florida and papers with statewide circulation to compare the differences in the amount of coverage and portrayals of panther risks to people and property on the basis of proximity of human communities to panthers. Local papers published significantly more news articles and significantly longer news articles primarily about panthers. Articles in local and statewide papers used both episodic frames, which focus on specific occurrences (e.g., a panther sighting or predation) and thematic frames, which focus on general trends (e.g., abundance of panthers over time). Local articles more often emphasized risks that panthers might harm people, pets, or livestock than statewide papers. Our results are consistent with theory that proximity to human-carnivore conflict influences perceptions and salience of risks posed by large carnivores. Most articles mentioned panthers as a secondary topic, which we believe was a result of the relevance an endangered carnivore has in discussions of public land management, development, and regulations in Florida. Claims made by sources quoted in each article had a neutral to positive depiction of panthers, and most quotations were from federal and state agency scientists. We suggest continued use by the media of agency sources provides the opportunity for clear, concordant messages about panther management. Content analysis provides a way to monitor media portrayal of carnivores for consistency with agency outreach goals.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The existence of anthropogenic climate change remains a public controversy despite the consensus among climate scientists. The controversy may be fed by the existence of scientists from other disciplines publicly casting doubt on the validity of climate science. The extent to which non-climate scientists are skeptical of climate science has not been studied via direct survey. Here we report on a survey of biophysical scientists across disciplines at universities in the Big 10 Conference. Most respondents (93.6%) believe that mean temperatures have risen and most (91.9%) believe in an anthropogenic contribution to rising temperatures. Respondents strongly believe that climate science is credible (mean credibility score 6.67/7). Those who disagree about climate change disagree over basic facts (e.g., the effects of CO 2 on climate) and have different cultural and political values. These results suggest that scientists who are climate change skeptics are outliers and that the majority of scientists surveyed believe in anthropogenic climate change and that climate science is credible and mature. OPEN ACCESS RECEIVED

No abstract