Is there a consensus among scientists that human activity is causing climate change?

Submitted by: LCheng 132

Yes. The vast majority of studies in this list came to this conclusion. Note that some of the studies in this list have been commented on or critiqued. Links to these comments/critiques appear on the corresponding study summaries below.
This short answer was generated by aggregating the answers that each of the 11 studies below gave to the question (as indicated by State of K members) and adjusting for source quality and other factors. If key studies are missing or the answers attributed to individual studies are incorrect, the above answer could be wrong. For medical questions, don't rely on the information here. Consult a medical professional.


Chart summary of 11 studies examining this question
Showing up to 10 at a time

All answers are assigned by State of K users. The label Couldn't Identify means that State of K was not able to determine whether a study answers the question "yes" or "no". This could be due to several factors. One possibility is that a study found some evidence to indicate that the answer to the question is "yes" and some evidence to indicate that the answer is "no". This often happens when a study uses two or more proxies to study the same phenomenon (i.e. firearm sales figures and self-reported firearm ownership rates as proxies for the prevalence of firearms) and the proxies yield different results when looking for correlations with another phenomenon (i.e. firearm-related deaths). Alternatively, the label may be applied if the phenomenon under study (i.e. whether breast milk improves cognitive function) is true for one group, but not another (i.e. true for girls, but not for boys). Yet another possibility is that a study found there was insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion regarding the question. Finally, the full text or abstract of a study may not have been written clearly or was inaccessible. This would make it difficult to determine how a study answered a question.

All labels of Literature Reviews and source quality are assigned by State of K. For academic journals, the label "Q[NUMBER]" is an indication of the quality of the publication. The "NUMBER" refer to the best quartile in which the journal appeared among all the subjects in which the journal was ranked by Scimago Institutions Rankings. For example, if a journal was ranked in the third quartile (Q3) in infectious diseases, but in the second quartile in Ebola studies (Q2), you would see "Q2". The best quartile is "Q1". Publications other than academic journals may be labeled as "Highly Regarded Sources". Government sources receive this label as do NGOs ranked by the TTCSP Global Go To Think Tank Index Reports. The information contained in a source that is labeled "highly regarded" or "Q1" is not necessarily more accurate than information contained in a source without that label, but these are rough guides to source quality.

Additional Recommended Studies Not in this List (yet)

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
Add question
What additional question do you want someone who searches for "Is there a consensus among scientists that human activity is causing climate change" to consider?

SUMMARIES OF STUDIES
Total studies in list: 11
Sorted by publication year
1
Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society
"This report is based on a pair of surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center in collaborationwith the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). It looks at the views of thegeneral public and scientists about the place of science in American culture, their views aboutmajor science-related issues, and the role of science in public policy.This is the first of several reports analyzing the data from this pair of surveys. This report focuseson a comparison of the views of the general public and those of AAAS scientists as a whole. Followup reports planned for later this year will analyze views of the general public in more detail,especially by demographic, religious, and political subgroups. And, some results from the survey ofAAAS scientists will be presented in a follow-up report in mid-February."
AUTHOR
Pew Research Center
PUBLISHED
2015 in Pew Research Center
High quality source
Yes
Yes
2
The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists
"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 CO2 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."
AUTHORS
Linda S Prokopy
Matthew Huber
Rebecca Perry-Hill
J S Carlton
PUBLISHED
2015 in Environmental Research Letters
High quality source
FUNDERS
Purdue Center for Climate Change Research
Yes
Yes
3
Meteorologists' Views About Global Warming: A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members
"Meteorologists and other atmospheric science experts are playing important roles in helping society respond to climate change. However, members of this professional community are not unanimous in their views of climate change, and there has been tension among members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) who hold different views on the topic. In response, AMS created the Committee to Improve Climate Change Communication to explore and, to the extent possible, resolve these tensions. To support this committee, in January 2012 we surveyed all AMS members with known e-mail addresses, achieving a 26.3% response rate (n = 1,854). In this paper we tested four hypotheses—1) perceived conflict about global warming will be negatively associated, and 2) climate expertise, 3) liberal political ideology, and 4) perceived scientific consensus will be positively associated—with 1) higher personal certainty that global warming is happening, 2) viewing the global warming observed over the past 150 years as mostly human caused, and 3) perception of global warming as harmful. All four hypotheses were confirmed. Expertise, ideology, perceived consensus, and perceived conflict were all independently related to respondents' views on climate, with perceived consensus and political ideology being most strongly related. We suggest that AMS should attempt to convey the widespread scientific agreement about climate change; acknowledge and explore the uncomfortable fact that political ideology influences the climate change views of meteorology professionals; refute the idea that those who do hold nonmajority views just need to be “educated” about climate change; and continue to deal with the conflict among members of the meteorology community."
AUTHORS
Paul Croft
Andrea Bleistein
Ray Ban
Sara Cobb
Edward Maibach
Neil Stenhouse et al
PUBLISHED
2014 in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
High quality source
Yes
Yes
4
Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming
"Results are presented from a survey held among 1868 scientists studying various aspects of climate change, including physical climate, climate impacts, and mitigation. The survey was unique in its size, broadness and level of detail. Consistent with other research, we found that, as the level of expertise in climate science grew, so too did the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation. 90% of respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), explicitly agreed with anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) being the dominant driver of recent global warming. The respondents’ quantitative estimate of the GHG contribution appeared to strongly depend on their judgment or knowledge of the cooling effect of aerosols. The phrasing of the IPCC attribution statement in its fourth assessment report (AR4)—providing a lower limit for the isolated GHG contribution—may have led to an underestimation of the GHG influence on recent warming. The phrasing was improved in AR5. We also report on the respondents’ views on other factors contributing to global warming; of these Land Use and Land Cover Change (LULCC) was considered the most important. Respondents who characterized human influence on climate as insignificant, reported having had the most frequent media coverage regarding their views on climate change."
AUTHORS
Jeroen Peters
Kees Vringer
Rob van Dorland
John Cook
Bart Strengers
Bart Verheggen et al
PUBLISHED
2014 in Environmental Science & Technology
High quality source
FUNDERS
Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, Netherlands
Yes
Yes
5
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."
AUTHORS
Rob Painting
Bärbel Winkler
Mark Richardson
Sarah A Green
Dana Nuccitelli
John Cook et al
PUBLISHED
2013 in Environmental Research Letters
High quality source
Yes
Yes
6
The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change
"Over the past several decades, environmental issues have become a steadily more significant part of political discourse in the United States and around the world. Since the 1990s, politicians, journalists, and the public have focused increasingly on global climate change, the possibility that human activities are creating significant increases in planetary temperatures. Throughout these debates, the comments of technical experts have played an important part. However, the debate has had an important political dimension, with policymakers either seeking out scientific voices in support of their policies or discounting scientific opinion that failed to support them.The Obama administration has taken global climate change as a given and has enlisted scientific expertise in developing its policies to combat global warming, a sharp contrast from Republican efforts during the George..."
AUTHORS
S. Robert Lichter
Stephen J. Farnsworth
PUBLISHED
2012 in International Journal of Public Opinion Research
High quality source
Yes
Yes
7
Expert credibility in climate change
"Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."
AUTHORS
S. H. Schneider
J. Harold
J. W. Prall
W. R. L. Anderegg
PUBLISHED
2010 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
High quality source
Yes
Yes
8
The scientific consensus of climate change revisited
"This paper first reviews previous work undertaken to assess the level of scientific consensus concerning climate change, concluding that studies of scientific consensus concerning climate change have tended to measure different things. Three dimensions of consensus are determined: manifestation, attribution and legitimation. Consensus concerning these dimensions are explored in detail using a time series of data from surveys of climate scientists. In most cases, little difference is discerned between those who have participated in the IPCC process and those who have not. Consensus, however, in both groups does not amount to unanimity. Results also suggest rather than a single group proclaiming the IPCC does not represent consensus, there are now two groups, one claiming the IPCC makes overestimations (a group previously labeled skeptics, deniers, etc.) and a relatively new formation of a group (many of whom have participated in the IPCC process) proclaiming that IPCC tends to underestimate some climate related phenomena."
AUTHOR
Dennis Bray
PUBLISHED
2010 in Environmental Science & Policy
High quality source
Couldn't Identify
Couldn't Identify
9
Climate change: a profile of US climate scientists’ perspectives
"Climate scientists have played a significant role in investigating global climate change. In the USA, a debate has swirled about whether a consensus on climate change exists among reputable scientists and this has entered the policy process. In order to better understand the views of US climate scientists, we conducted an empirical survey of US climate scientists (N = 468) in 2005, and compared the results with the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) physical science report and policy summaries. Our results reveal that survey respondents generally agree about the nature, causes, and consequences of climate change, and are in agreement with IPCC findings. We also found that there is strong support for a variety of policy initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
AUTHORS
Sammy Zahran
Deborah F. Cowman
Arnold Vedlitz
Stacy Rosenberg
PUBLISHED
2010 in Climatic Change
High quality source
Yes
Yes
10
Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
"Fifty‐two percent of Americans think most climate scientists agree that the Earth has been warming in recent years, and 47% think climate scientists agree (i.e., that there is a scientific consensus) that human activities are a major cause of that warming, according to recent polling (see http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm). However, attempts to quantify the scientific consensus on anthropogenic warming have met with criticism. For instance, Oreskes [2004] reviewed 928 abstracts from peer‐reviewed research papers and found that more than 75% either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities. Yet Oreskes's approach has been criticized for overstating the level of consensus acceptance within the examined abstracts [Peiser, 2005] and for not capturing the full diversity of scientific opinion [Pielke, 2005]. A review of previous attempts at quantifying the consensus and criticisms is provided by Kendall Zimmerman [2008]. The objective of our study presented here is to assess the scientific consensus on climate change through an unbiased survey of a large and broad group of Earth scientists."
AUTHORS
Maggie Kendall Zimmerman
Peter T. Doran
PUBLISHED
2009 in Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union
High quality source
Yes
Yes
11
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
"Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, “As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change” (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case."
AUTHOR
Naomi Oreskes
PUBLISHED
2004 in Science
High quality source
Yes
Yes







ADDITIONAL STUDIES TO CONSIDER ADDING TO LIST
Total additional studies: 26
State of K's algorithms generated the list of studies below based on the studies that were added to the above list. Some of these studies may also examine: "Is there a consensus among scientists that human activity is causing climate change?" If a study examines this question, add it to the list by pressing the button.

Only add studies that examine the same question. Do not add studies that are merely on the same topic.

Scientific truth or debate: On the link between perceived scientific consensus and belief in anthropogenic climate change
FUNDERS
JPI-Climate
" Scientists overwhelmingly agree that climate change exists and is caused by human activity. It has been argued that communicating the consensus can counter climate scepticism, given that perceived scientific consensus is a major factor predicting public belief that climate change is anthropogenic. However, individuals may hold different models of science, potentially affecting their interpretation of scientific consensus. Using representative surveys in the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Norway, we assessed whether the relationship between perceived scientific consensus and belief in anthropogenic climate change is conditioned by a person’s viewing science as ‘the search for truth’ or as ‘debate’. Results show that perceived scientific consensus is higher among climate change believers and moreover, significantly predicts belief in anthropogenic climate change. This relationship is stronger among people holding a model of science as the ‘search for truth’. These results help to disentangle the effect of implicit epistemological assumptions underlying the public understanding of the climate change debate. "
AUTHORS
Endre Tvinnereim
Marc Poumadère
Wouter Poortinga
Gisela Böhm
Claire Mays
Raquel Bertoldo et al
PUBLISHED
2019 in Public Understanding of Science

Add to List
Rational Irrationality: Modeling Climate Change Belief Polarization Using Bayesian Networks
"Unlabelled: Belief polarization is said to occur when two people respond to the same evidence by updating their beliefs in opposite directions. This response is considered to be "irrational" because it involves contrary updating, a form of belief updating that appears to violate normatively optimal responding, as for example dictated by Bayes' theorem. In light of much evidence that people are capable of normatively optimal behavior, belief polarization presents a puzzling exception. We show that Bayesian networks, or Bayes nets, can simulate rational belief updating. When fit to experimental data, Bayes nets can help identify the factors that contribute to polarization. We present a study into belief updating concerning the reality of climate change in response to information about the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The study used representative samples of Australian and U.S.

Participants: Among Australians, consensus information partially neutralized the influence of worldview, with free-market supporters showing a greater increase in acceptance of human-caused global warming relative to free-market opponents. In contrast, while consensus information overall had a positive effect on perceived consensus among U.S. participants, there was a reduction in perceived consensus and acceptance of human-caused global warming for strong supporters of unregulated free markets. Fitting a Bayes net model to the data indicated that under a Bayesian framework, free-market support is a significant driver of beliefs about climate change and trust in climate scientists. Further, active distrust of climate scientists among a small number of U.S. conservatives drives contrary updating in response to consensus information among this particular group.

"
AUTHORS
John Cook
Stephan Lewandowsky
PUBLISHED
2016 in Topics in Cognitive Science

Add to List
Broadcast Meteorologists’ Views on Climate Change: A State-of-the-Community Review
FUNDERS
National Science Foundation
" Broadcast meteorologists—highly skilled professionals who work at the intersection between climate scientists and the public—have considerable opportunity to educate their viewers about the local impacts of global climate change. Prior research has shown that, within the broadcast meteorology community, views of climate change have evolved rapidly over the past decade. Here, using data from three census surveys of U.S. broadcast meteorologists conducted annually between 2015 and 2017, is a comprehensive analysis of broadcast meteorologists’ views about climate change. Specifically, this research describes weathercasters’ beliefs about climate change and certainty in those beliefs, perceived causes of climate change, perceived scientific consensus and interest in learning more about climate change, belief that climate change is occurring (and the certainty of that belief), belief that climate change is human caused, perceptions of any local impacts of climate change, and perceptions of the solvability of climate change. Today’s weathercaster community appears to be sharing the same viewpoints and outlooks as most climate scientists—in particular, that climate change is already affecting the United States and that present-day trends are largely a result of human activity. "
AUTHORS
David R. Perkins IV
Teresa Myers
Edward Maibach
Kristin Timm
PUBLISHED
2020 in Weather, Climate, and Society

Add to List
Tracking Public Beliefs About Anthropogenic Climate Change.
"A simple question about climate change, with one choice designed to match consensus statements by scientists, was asked on 35 US nationwide, single-state or regional surveys from 2010 to 2015. Analysis of these data (over 28,000 interviews) yields robust and exceptionally well replicated findings on public beliefs about anthropogenic climate change, including regional variations, change over time, demographic bases, and the interacting effects of respondent education and political views. We find that more than half of the US public accepts the scientific consensus that climate change is happening now, caused mainly by human activities. A sizable, politically opposite minority (about 30 to 40%) concede the fact of climate change, but believe it has mainly natural causes. Few (about 10 to 15%) say they believe climate is not changing, or express no opinion. The overall proportions appear relatively stable nationwide, but exhibit place-to-place variations. Detailed analysis of 21 consecutive surveys within one fairly representative state (New Hampshire) finds a mild but statistically significant rise in agreement with the scientific consensus over 2010-2015. Effects from daily temperature are detectable but minor. Hurricane Sandy, which brushed New Hampshire but caused no disaster there, shows no lasting impact on that state's time series-suggesting that non-immediate weather disasters have limited effects. In all datasets political orientation dominates among individual-level predictors of climate beliefs, moderating the otherwise positive effects from education. Acceptance of anthropogenic climate change rises with education among Democrats and Independents, but not so among Republicans. The continuing series of surveys provides a baseline for tracking how future scientific, political, socioeconomic or climate developments impact public acceptance of the scientific consensus. "
AUTHORS
Mary Lemcke-Stampone
Joel Hartter
Lawrence C Hamilton
David W Moore
Thomas G Safford
PUBLISHED
2015 in PLoS ONE

Add to List
Reply to ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature: A re-analysis’
"Cook et al. (2013) (C13) found that 97% of relevant climate papers endorse anthropogenic global warming (AGW), consistent with previous independent studies. Tol (in press) (T14) agrees that the scientific literature ‘overwhelmingly supports’ AGW, but disputes C13′s methods. We show that T14′s claims of a slightly lower consensus result from a basic calculation error that manufactures approximately 300 nonexistent rejection papers. T14′s claimed impact on consensus due to the reconciliation process is of the wrong sign, with reconciliation resulting in a slight increase (<0.2%) in the consensus percentage. Allegations of data inconsistency are based on statistics unrelated to consensus. Running the same tests using appropriate consensus statistics shows no evidence of inconsistency. We confirm that the consensus is robust at 97±1%."
AUTHORS
Rob Honeycutt
Rob Painting
Peter Jacobs
Andrew Skuce
Dana Nuccitelli
John Cook et al
PUBLISHED
2014 in Energy Policy

Add to List
Simple messages help set the record straight about scientific agreement on human-caused climate change: the results of two experiments.
"Human-caused climate change is happening; nearly all climate scientists are convinced of this basic fact according to surveys of experts and reviews of the peer-reviewed literature. Yet, among the American public, there is widespread misunderstanding of this scientific consensus. In this paper, we report results from two experiments, conducted with national samples of American adults, that tested messages designed to convey the high level of agreement in the climate science community about human-caused climate change. The first experiment tested hypotheses about providing numeric versus non-numeric assertions concerning the level of scientific agreement. We found that numeric statements resulted in higher estimates of the scientific agreement. The second experiment tested the effect of eliciting respondents' estimates of scientific agreement prior to presenting them with a statement about the level of scientific agreement. Participants who estimated the level of agreement prior to being shown the corrective statement gave higher estimates of the scientific consensus than respondents who were not asked to estimate in advance, indicating that incorporating an "estimation and reveal" technique into public communication about scientific consensus may be effective. The interaction of messages with political ideology was also tested, and demonstrated that messages were approximately equally effective among liberals and conservatives. Implications for theory and practice are discussed. "
AUTHORS
Edward Maibach
Anthony Leiserowitz
Teresa A Myers
Ellen Peters
PUBLISHED
2015 in PLoS ONE

Add to List
Early climate change consensus at the National Academy: the origins and making of "Changing Climate".
"The 1983 National Academy of Sciences report entitled "Changing Climate," authored by a committee of physical and social scientists chaired by William Nierenberg, was an early comprehensive review of the effects of human-caused increases in the levels of atmospheric CO2. Study of the events surrounding the committee's creation, deliberations, and subsequent report demonstrates that the conclusions of the report were the consensus of the entire committee and in line with the scientific consensus of the time. This result contraverts a 2008 paper in which Naomi Oreskes, Erik M. Conway, and Matthew Shindell asserted that the report contradicted a growing consensus about climate change, and that Nierenberg for political reasons deliberately altered the summary and conclusions of the report in a way that played down the concerns of the other physical scientists on the committee. Examining the production of the report and contextualizing it in contemporaneous scientific and political discussion, we instead show how it was a multi-year effort with work divided among the various members of the committee according to their expertise. The synthesis and conclusions were expressly a joint statement of the committee and were consistent with other assessments of that time expressing deep concern over the potential issues while stopping short of recommending major policy changes due to the uncertainties, and to a lack of good alternatives."
AUTHORS
Nicolas Nierenberg
Victoria J Tschinkel
Walter R Tschinkel
PUBLISHED
2010 in Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences

Add to List
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis
"A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested."
AUTHOR
Richard S.J. Tol
PUBLISHED
2014 in Energy Policy

Add to List
Highly regarded source
Further Comment on “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”
"The feature article “Examining the scientific consensus on climate change,” by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (see Eos, 90(3), 20 January 2009), while interesting, has a primary flaw that calls their interpretation into question. In their opening sentence, the authors state that on the basis of polling data, “47% [of Americans] think climate scientists agree… that human activities are a major cause of that [global] warming….” They then described the two‐question survey they had posed to a large group of Earth scientists and scientifically literate (I presume) people in related fields. While the polled group is important, in any poll the questions are critical. My point revolves around their question 2, to wit, “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” Note that the opening sentence of their article uses the phrase “major cause” in reporting the results of the polling, while the poll itself used the phrase “significant contributing factor.” There is a large difference between these two phrases."
AUTHOR
John Helsdon
PUBLISHED
2009 in Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union

Add to List
Changes in perceived scientific consensus shift beliefs about climate change and GM food safety.
"Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus, a sizable minority of people doubt that human activity is causing climate change. Communicating the existence of a scientific consensus has been suggested as a way to correct individuals' misperceptions about human-caused climate change and other scientific issues, though empirical support is mixed. We report an experiment in which psychology students were presented with consensus information about two issues, and subsequently reported their perception of the level of consensus and extent of their endorsement of those issues. We find that messages about scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change and the safety of genetically modified food shift perceptions of scientific consensus. Using mediation models we also show that, for both these issues, high consensus messages also increase reported personal agreement with the scientific consensus, mediated by changes in perceptions of a scientific consensus. This confirms the role of perceived consensus in informing personal beliefs about climate change, though results indicate the impact of single, one-off messages may be limited."
AUTHORS
Marc Stewart Wilson
John R Kerr
PUBLISHED
2018 in PLoS ONE

Add to List
Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the United States
"Despite the growing scientific consensus about the risks of global warming and climate change, the mass media frequently portray the subject as one of great scientific controversy and debate. And yet previous studies of the mass public's subjective assessments of the risks of global warming and climate change have not sufficiently examined public informedness, public confidence in climate scientists, and the role of personal efficacy in affecting global warming outcomes. By examining the results of a survey on an original and representative sample of Americans, we find that these three forces-informedness, confidence in scientists, and personal efficacy-are related in interesting and unexpected ways, and exert significant influence on risk assessments of global warming and climate change. In particular, more informed respondents both feel less personally responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming. We also find that confidence in scientists has unexpected effects: respondents with high confidence in scientists feel less responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming. These results have substantial implications for the interaction between scientists and the public in general, and for the public discussion of global warming and climate change in particular."
AUTHORS
Paul M. Kellstedt
Arnold Vedlitz
Sammy Zahran
PUBLISHED
2008 in Risk Analysis

Add to List
Global Climate Change and Children's Health
"There is a broad scientific consensus that the global climate is warming, the process is accelerating, and that human activities are very likely (>90% probability) the main cause. This warming will have effects on ecosystems and human health, many of them adverse. Children will experience both the direct and indirect effects of climate change. Actions taken by individuals, communities, businesses, and governments will affect the magnitude and rate of global climate change and resultant health impacts. This technical report reviews the nature of the global problem and anticipated health effects on children and supports the recommendations in the accompanying policy statement on climate change and children's health."
AUTHOR
K. M. Shea
PUBLISHED
2007 in PEDIATRICS

Add to List
Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming
"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 non-experts 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 non-endorsement, 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."
AUTHORS
Peter Jacobs
Dana Nuccitelli
Naomi Oreskes
John Cook
Stephan Lewandowsky
Ken Rice et al
PUBLISHED
2016 in Environmental Research Letters

Add to List
Public health impacts of climate change in Nepal.
"Climate change is a global issue in this century which has challenged the survival of living creatures affecting the life supporting systems of the earth: atmosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere. Scientists have reached in a consensus that climate change is happening. The anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases is responsible for global warming and therefore climate change. Climate change may directly or indirectly affect human health through a range of pathways related to temperature and precipitation. The aim of this article is to share knowledge on how climate change can affect public health in Nepal based on scientific evidence from global studies and experience gained locally. In this review attempt has been made to critically analyze the scientific studies as well as policy documents of Nepalese Government and shed light on public health impact of climate change in the context of Nepal. Detailed scientific study is recommended to discern impact of climate change on public health problems in Nepal."
AUTHORS
H D Joshi
C L Bhusal
B Dhimal
M Dhimal
PUBLISHED
2011 in Journal of Nepal Health Research Council

Add to List
Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?
You can view the abstract at: https://doi.org/10.1260/095830508783900744
AUTHOR
Klaus-Martin Schulte
PUBLISHED
2008 in Energy & Environment

Add to List
Comment on 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature'
"Cook et al's highly influential consensus study (2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) finds different results than previous studies in the consensus literature. It omits tests for systematic differences between raters. Many abstracts are unaccounted for. The paper does not discuss the procedures used to ensure independence between the raters, to ensure that raters did not use additional information, and to ensure that later ratings were not influenced by earlier results. Clarifying these issues would further strengthen the paper, and establish it as our best estimate of the consensus."
AUTHOR
Richard S J Tol
PUBLISHED
2016 in Environmental Research Letters

Add to List
Comment on ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature’
"Cook et al's highly influential consensus study (2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) finds different results than previous studies in the consensus literature. It omits tests for systematic differences between raters. Many abstracts are unaccounted for. The paper does not discuss the procedures used to ensure independence between the raters, to ensure that raters did not use additional information, and to ensure that later ratings were not influenced by earlier results. Clarifying these issues would further strengthen the paper, and establish it as our best estimate of the consensus."
AUTHOR
Richard S J Tol
PUBLISHED
2016 in Environmental Research Letters

Add to List
Comment on ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature’
"I read the study by Cook et al with great interest [1]. The study used levels of endorsement of global warming as outlined in their table 2; however, I could see no mention as to how these levels were created and how reliable they were in terms of both inter-rater and intra-rater reliability (Cohen's kappa). Best practice on rater reliability indicates that both inter-rater and intra-rater should have been measured and documented in a study such as Dr Cook's [2] and I am surprised that this fact appears to have been neglected. It would be of considerable benefit to readers for some robust rate reliability metrics to be included, if at all possible."
AUTHOR
Benjamin John Floyd Dean
PUBLISHED
2015 in Environmental Research Letters

Add to List
Reply to Comment on 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature'
"Inter-rater reliability statistics may be trivially calculated from the released data available at www.skepticalscience.com/docs/tcp_allratings.txt. We have placed R-code for this calculation on the project website at www.skepticalscience.com/docs/interrating.r. The unweighted Cohen kappa is 0.35 using the seven fine-grained categories used in the initial rating process. However, the consensus statistics are based on only three categories: 'endorse', 'reject' or 'no position'; for these categories, kappa rises to 0.46. Subdividing rating categories is known to depress kappa values. The more appropriate Fleiss kappa gives the same results. In our view, the categories should be considered as nominative (Cook et al 2014). However, if they are treated as ordered, the kappa value for the fine-grained categories approaches the value for the consensus categories. Kappa values are also depressed in the case when category counts are very uneven (Sim and Wright 2005). Our data is an extreme case with two orders of magnitude difference between the most and least populous categories.

The interpretation of these statistics is problematic. Landis and Koch (1977) propose an ad-hoc metric by which the agreement on the fine-grained categories would be called 'fair' and on the consensus categories 'moderate'. However, there is no theoretical basis for these labels. Dean cites Kottner et al (2011), who discuss kappa values for a rather different application (medical diagnosis), in which the accuracy of individual ratings has consequences for patient health. If however the physician were simply conducting a survey of the prevalence of a condition, agreement rates are less critical as long as the ratings are not biased. Similarly in our case, the agreement rate affects the uncertainty in the result, but only a bias would lead to an incorrect value for the consensus.

Because the consensus ratio is determined by two of the three categories, differences in allocation of papers to the 'no position' category have minimal impact on the conclusions. The proportion of ratings in the relevant categories (i.e. endorse, no position, reject) for the 12 raters who contributed at least 500 ratings were decomposed by change of variable into consensus invariant and consensus altering terms. The inter-rater variability in the consensus invariant variable was more than twenty times larger than in the consensus altering variable. Thus the primary cause of inter-rater variability arises from differing interpretations of the no-position criteria, but at the same time the raters applied their individual criteria consistently to both the endorse and reject categories. This suggests that inter-rater variability could be substantially reduced by clarification and training on the no-position criteria, but that doing so would not affect the final consensus percentages.

The final consensus percentages calculated for the 12 most prolific raters gives an estimate of the uncertainty in the resu"
AUTHORS
John Cook
Kevin Cowtan
PUBLISHED
2015 in Environmental Research Letters

Add to List
The scientific consensus on climate change
You can view the abstract at: https://doi.org/10.1051/epn/2013602
AUTHOR
John Cook
PUBLISHED
2013 in Europhysics News

Add to List
Climate Change: The Scientific Consensus
You can view the abstract at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8923-7_4
AUTHOR
K. Locana Gunaratna
PUBLISHED
2018 in Towards Equitable Progress (Book)

Add to List
The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: experimental evidence.
"There is currently widespread public misunderstanding about the degree of scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, both in the US as well as internationally. Moreover, previous research has identified important associations between public perceptions of the scientific consensus, belief in climate change and support for climate policy. This paper extends this line of research by advancing and providing experimental evidence for a "gateway belief model" (GBM). Using national data (N = 1104) from a consensus-message experiment, we find that increasing public perceptions of the scientific consensus is significantly and causally associated with an increase in the belief that climate change is happening, human-caused and a worrisome threat. In turn, changes in these key beliefs are predictive of increased support for public action. In short, we find that perceived scientific agreement is an important gateway belief, ultimately influencing public responses to climate change. "
AUTHORS
Edward W Maibach
Geoffrey D Feinberg
Anthony A Leiserowitz
Sander L van der Linden
PUBLISHED

Add to List
About “scientific consensus on climate change”
You can view the abstract at: https://doi.org/10.1051/epn/2014205
AUTHOR
A. Bettini
PUBLISHED
2014 in Europhysics News

Add to List
About “scientific consensus on climate change”
You can view the abstract at: https://doi.org/10.1051/epn/2014500
AUTHOR
Gianluca Alimonti
PUBLISHED
2014 in Europhysics News

Add to List

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
Add question
What additional question do you want someone who searches for "Is there a consensus among scientists that human activity is causing climate change" to consider?