Moving beyond scientific agreement

Anderegg, William R. L.

doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9925-3

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the diversity of sampling techniques and approaches, a consistent picture of an overwhelming consensus among experts on anthropogenic climate change has emerged from these studies. Another recurring finding is that higher scientific agreement is associated with higher levels of expertise in climate science (Oreskes 2004, Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg 2010, Verheggen et al 2014.…”

Section: Assessing Expert Consensusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, this does not constitute a sample of experts, as non-experts were included. Anderegg (2010) found that nearly one-third of the unconvinced group lacked a PhD, and only a tiny fraction had a PhD in a climate-relevant discipline. 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.…”

Section: Interpreting Consensus Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Cook

Орескес

Doran

et al. 2016

Environ. Res. Lett.

1,011

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: Assessing Expert Consensusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Interpreting Consensus Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Cook

Орескес

Doran

et al. 2016

Environ. Res. Lett.

1,011

462

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One recent example of a politicized scientific issue, especially in the United States, is the discussion of anthropogenic climate change, where a strong skeptical movement is very successful in spreading doubt towards a widely accepted scientific consensus (e.g. Anderegg 2010;Cook et al 2013), thus avoiding the creation of climate policy regulations (Brulle 2014;Dunlap and McCright 2011;Dunlap et al 2016;Jacques et al 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Politicization of science: how climate change skeptics use experts and scientific evidence in their online communication

Schmid-Petri

2017

Climatic Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study, using the discussion about climate change in the United States as an example, analyzes the research question of how climate change skeptics use experts and scientific evidence in their online communication. Two different strategies are distinguished: legitimation and criticism. The study conducts a quantitative content analysis of online documents to answer the research question. The results show that the deduced strategies are an important part of the communication of climate change skeptics, who more commonly use the criticism strategy than the legitimation strategy. Results are further differentiated for different actor types and various types of experts.

show abstract

“…Rather than eliding this distinction, we highlighted it. Bodenstein (1) then reiterates the self-evident argument that predominating paradigms can be proven wrong and the unsubstantiated speculation that group think rather than data could drive citation/publication patterns, which we have addressed elsewhere (3,5,6).Though not present here (1), scientific discourse is aided by substantive comments on studies such as ours. We have engaged with such comments in a variety of venues (5, 6) and believe our engagement has further strengthened our thinking and our argument.…”

mentioning

confidence: 76%

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Reply to Bodenstein: Contextual data about the relative scale of opposing scientific communities

Anderegg¹,

Prall²,

Harold³

2010

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The letter by Bodenstein (1) takes issue with several semantic distinctions and the value of measuring expert agreement and credentials in our recent study (2). Bodenstein's (1) comments suggest a disagreement with the mere practice of analyzing expert perspectives and credentials. He raises many speculative points without offering data, which we have addressed elsewhere (3). We stand by the analysis presented in our study.Bodenstein (1) suggests that our study takes an ad hominem approach of "truth by majority rule" that bypasses the merits of evaluating the scientific data. This misunderstands our study's framing and stands in direct contrast to two prominent conclusions in the paper. We concluded that our results "suggest a strong role for considering expert credibility in the relative weight of and attention to these groups of researchers in future discussions in media, policy, and public forums" (2). Importantly, our paper did not claim to be proving any scientific truth by counting scientists. On the contrary, we stated that the distribution of experts and their credentials has been a hitherto underconsidered element in the broader climate change discourse, which can lead to media bias (4). Mistakenly, Bodenstein (1) claims that we implied that minority viewpoints should be ignored and that our study tarred individuals with group metrics. These two comments disregard the above statement where we did not suggest ignoring minority viewpoints but instead, suggested that the relative weight and credentials of viewpoints should be presented along with the viewpoint as contextual information. Furthermore, we stated explicitly: "Ultimately, of course, scientific confidence is earned by the winnowing process of peer review and replication of studies over time. In the meanwhile, given the immediacy attendant to the state of debate over perception of climate science, we must seek estimates while confidence builds" (2). This risk management framework of synthesizing expert perception and agreement clearly did not preclude, but instead, complemented and in fact, relied on, direct evaluation of the scientific data (3).Bodenstein (1) suggests that we elided or obscured the distinction between our metrics and the construct that they represented and speculates without evidence on the deficiencies of publication records as metrics. As Bodenstein acknowledges (1), however, we clearly presented our framework, precisely defined our metrics, and justified their use as metrics. Rather than eliding this distinction, we highlighted it. Bodenstein (1) then reiterates the self-evident argument that predominating paradigms can be proven wrong and the unsubstantiated speculation that group think rather than data could drive citation/publication patterns, which we have addressed elsewhere (3,5,6).Though not present here (1), scientific discourse is aided by substantive comments on studies such as ours. We have engaged with such comments in a variety of venues (5, 6) and believe our engagement has further strengthened our thinking and ...

show abstract

Moving beyond scientific agreement

Cited by 12 publications

References 11 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

Politicization of science: how climate change skeptics use experts and scientific evidence in their online communication

Reply to Bodenstein: Contextual data about the relative scale of opposing scientific communities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About