Wednesday, May 15, 2013

New paper finds only 32.6% of climate papers endorse anthropogenic global warming

The 32% non-consensus

The new paper from climate clowns Cook & Nuccitelli et al has just been published open-access online in Environmental Research Letters. According to the authors, of 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991-2011, "66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW [anthropogenic global warming], 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming." Of the only 32.6% of papers that endorsed AGW, one would expect 100% endorsement of AGW by the authors of those 32.6% of papers, yet Cook finds somewhat less agreement of 97.1% even amongst scientists who already endorsed AGW in their papers. Even if one trusts the methods of  Cook & Nuccitelli et al, who have repeatedly been shown to distort & torture data and apply inappropriate statistical methods, their paper only indicates a 32.6*0.971 = 31.6% non-consensus endorsement of AGW in the climate literature.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

John Cook et al 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

John Cook 1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli 2,4, Sarah A Green 5, Mark Richardson 6, Bärbel Winkler 2, Rob Painting 2, Robert Way 7, Peter Jacobs 8 and Andrew Skuce 2,9

Full text PDF (501 KB)    Enhanced article HTML

Download this video   Transcript of this video
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.

Fuzzy math: In a new soon to be published paper, John Cook claims ‘consensus’ on 32.6% of scientific papers that endorse AGW

I Do Not Think it Means What You Think it Means

The 97% "Consensus" is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists


  1. Try this math from a commenter on WUWT:

    davidmhoffer says:
    May 14, 2013 at 11:07 pm

    Peter Ward;
    Or did he include the 66.4% with no position in a “those who are not against me are for me” approach?

    Not quite. What he did is to ignore them entirely.

    32.6% pro + 0.7% against + 0.3% uncertain = 33.6%
    32.6/33.6 = 0.970

  2. Jo Nova does a fantastic job ripping this 'study' to shreds:

  3. Climate Depot roundup on this 'study'

  4. see especially