Mother Pelican
A Journal of Solidarity and Sustainability

Vol. 9, No. 6, June 2013
Luis T. Gutiérrez, Editor
Home Page


Quantifying the Consensus on
Anthropogenic Global Warming
in the Scientific Literature

John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green,
Mark Richardson, Barbel Winkler, Rob Painting,
Robert Way, Peter Jacobs, Andrew Skuce

Originally published in Environmental Research Letters, IOP Science, 15 May 2013
under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence


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. Keywords: scientific consensus, anthropogenic global warming, peer-review, global climate change, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Online supplementary data available from

1. Introduction

An accurate perception of the degree of scientific consensus is an essential element to public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). Communicating the scientific consensus also increases people’s acceptance that climate change (CC) is happening (Lewandowsky et al 2012). Despite numerous indicators of a consensus, there is wide public perception that climate scientists disagree over the fundamental cause of global warming (GW; Leiserowitz et al 2012, Pew 2012). In the most comprehensive analysis performed to date, we have extended the analysis of peer-reviewed climate papers in Oreskes (2004). We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).


Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97–98%) regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al 2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009 (Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution of recent GW (Houghton et al 1996, 2001, Solomon et al 2007).

The peer-reviewed scientific literature provides a groundlevel assessment of the degree of consensus among publishing scientists. An analysis of abstracts published from 1993–2003 matching the search ‘global climate change’ found that none of 928 papers disagreed with the consensus position on AGW (Oreskes 2004). This is consistent with an analysis of citation networks that found a consensus on AGWforming in the early 1990s (Shwed and Bearman 2010).

Despite these independent indicators of a scientific consensus, the perception of the US public is that the scientific community still disagrees over the fundamental cause of GW. From 1997 to 2007, public opinion polls have indicated around 60% of the US public believes there is significant disagreement among scientists about whether GW was happening (Nisbet and Myers 2007). Similarly, 57% of the US public either disagreed or were unaware that scientists agree that the earth is very likely warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).

Through analysis of climate-related papers published from 1991 to 2011, this study provides the most comprehensive analysis of its kind to date in order to quantify and evaluate the level and evolution of consensus over the last two decades.

2. Methodology

This letter was conceived as a ‘citizen science’ project by volunteers contributing to the Skeptical Science website ( In March 2012, we searched the ISI Web of Science for papers published from 1991–2011 using topic searches for ‘global warming’ or ‘global climate change’. Article type was restricted to ‘article’, excluding books, discussions, proceedings papers and other document types. The search was updated in May 2012 with papers added to the Web of Science up to that date.

We classified each abstract according to the type of research (category) and degree of endorsement. Written criteria were provided to raters for category (Table 1) and level of endorsement of AGW (Table 2). Explicit endorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50% of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations).

Abstracts were randomly distributed via a web-based system to raters with only the title and abstract visible. All other information such as author names and affiliations, journal and publishing date were hidden. Each abstract was categorized by two independent, anonymized raters. A team of 12 individuals completed 97.4% (23 061) of the ratings; an additional 12 contributed the remaining 2.6% (607). Initially, 27% of category ratings and 33% of endorsement ratings disagreed. Raters were then allowed to compare and justify or update their rating through the web system, while maintaining anonymity. Following this, 11% of category ratings and 16% of endorsement ratings disagreed; these were then resolved by a third party.


Upon completion of the final ratings, a random sample of 1000 ‘No Position’ category abstracts were re-examined to differentiate those that did not express an opinion from those that take the position that the cause of GW is uncertain. An ‘Uncertain’ abstract explicitly states that the cause of global warming is not yet determined (e.g., ‘. . . the extent of human-induced global warming is inconclusive. . . ’) while a ‘No Position’ abstract makes no statement on AGW.

To complement the abstract analysis, email addresses for 8547 authors were collected, typically from the corresponding author and/or first author. For each year, email addresses were obtained for at least 60% of papers. Authors were emailed an invitation to participate in a survey in which they rated their own published papers (the entire content of the article, not just the abstract) with the same criteria as used by the independent rating team. Details of the survey text are provided in the supplementary information (available at 8/024024/mmedia).

3. Results

The ISI search generated 12,465 papers. Eliminating papers that were not peer-reviewed (186), not climate-related (288) or without an abstract (47) reduced the analysis to 11,944 papers written by 29,083 authors and published in 1980 journals. To simplify the analysis, ratings were consolidated into three groups: endorsements (including implicit and explicit; categories 1–3 in Table 2), no position (category 4) and rejections (including implicit and explicit; categories 5–7). We examined four metrics to quantify the level of endorsement:

(1) The percentage of endorsements/rejections/undecideds among all abstracts.

(2) The percentage of endorsements/rejections/undecideds among only those abstracts expressing a position on AGW.

(3) The percentage of scientists authoring endorsement/ rejection abstracts among all scientists.

(4) The same percentage among only those scientists who expressed a position on AGW (Table 3).

3.1. Endorsement percentages from abstract ratings

Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.

The time series of each level of endorsement of the consensus on AGW was analyzed in terms of the number of abstracts (Figure 1(a)) and the percentage of abstracts (Figure 1(b)). Over time, the no position



3.2. Endorsement percentages from self-ratings We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate). After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors. The self-rated levels of endorsement are shown in Table 4. Among self-rated papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus. Among respondents who authored a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the consensus.



Figure 2(a) shows the level of self-rated endorsement in terms of number of abstracts (the corollary to Figure 1(a)) and Figure 2(b) shows the percentage of abstracts (the corollary to Figure 1(b)). The percentage of self-rated rejection papers decreased (simple linear regression trend -0.25% +/- 0.18% per yr, 95% CI, R2 = 0:28; p = 0:01, Figure 2(b)). The time series of self-rated no position and consensus endorsement papers both show no clear trend over time.

A direct comparison of abstract rating versus self-rating endorsement levels for the 2142 papers that received a self-rating is shown in Table 5. More than half of the abstracts that we rated as ‘No Position’ or ‘Undecided’ were rated ‘Endorse AGW’ by the paper’s authors.

Figure 3 compares the percentage of papers endorsing the scientific consensus among all papers that express a position endorsing or rejecting the consensus. The year-to-year variability is larger in the self-ratings than in the abstract ratings due to the smaller sample sizes in the early 1990s. The percentage of AGWendorsements for both self-rating and abstract-rated papers increase marginally over time (simple linear regression trends 0.10 +/- 0.09% per yr, 95% CI, R2 = 0:20, p = 0:04 for abstracts, 0.35 +/- 0.26% per yr, 95% CI, R2 = 0:26; p = 0:02 for self-ratings), with both series approaching approximately 98% endorsements in 2011.

4. Discussion

Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situations where scientists ‘. . . generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees’ (Oreskes 2007, p 72). This explanation is also consistent with a description of consensus as a ‘spiral trajectory’ in which ‘initially intense contestation generates rapid settlement and induces a spiral of new questions’ (Shwed and Bearman 2010); the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics. This is supported by the fact that more than half of the self-rated endorsement papers did not express a position on AGW in their abstracts. The self-ratings by the papers’ authors provide insight into the nature of the scientific consensus amongst publishing scientists. For both self-ratings and our abstract ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time, consistent with Bray (2010) in finding a strengthening consensus.

4.1. Sources of uncertainty

The process of determining the level of consensus in the peer-reviewed literature contains several sources of uncertainty, including the representativeness of the sample, lack of clarity in the abstracts and subjectivity in rating the abstracts.

We address the issue of representativeness by selecting the largest sample to date for this type of literature analysis. Nevertheless, 11 944 papers is only a fraction of the climate literature. A Web of Science search for ‘climate change’ over the same period yields 43 548 papers, while a search for ‘climate’ yields 128 440 papers. The crowd-sourcing techniques employed in this analysis could be expanded to include more papers. This could facilitate an approach approximating the methods of Doran and Zimmerman (2009), which measured the level of scientific consensus for varying degrees of expertise in climate science. A similar approach could analyze the level of consensus among climate papers depending on their relevance to the attribution of GW. Another potential area of uncertainty involved the text of the abstracts themselves. In some cases, ambiguous language made it difficult to ascertain the intended meaning of the authors. Naturally, a short abstract could not be expected to communicate all the details of the full paper. The implementation of the author self-rating process allowed us to look beyond the abstract. A comparison between self-ratings and abstract ratings revealed that categorization based on the abstract alone underestimates the percentage of papers taking a position on AGW.

Lastly, some subjectivity is inherent in the abstract rating process. While criteria for determining ratings were defined prior to the rating period, some clarifications and amendments were required as specific situations presented themselves. Two sources of rating bias can be cited: first, given that the raters themselves endorsed the scientific consensus on AGW, they may have been more likely to classify papers as sharing that endorsement. Second, scientific reticence (Hansen 2007) or ‘erring on the side of least drama’ (ESLD; Brysse et al 2012) may have exerted an opposite effect by biasing raters towards a ‘no position’ classification. These sources of bias were partially addressed by the use of multiple independent raters and by comparing abstract rating results to author self-ratings. A comparison of author ratings of the full papers and abstract ratings reveals a bias toward an under-counting of endorsement papers in the abstract ratings (mean difference 0.6 in units of endorsement level). This mitigated concerns about rater subjectivity, but suggests that scientific reticence and ESLD remain possible biases in the abstract ratings process. The potential impact of initial rating disagreements was also calculated and found to have minimal impact on the level of consensus (see supplemental information, section S1 available at

4.2. Comparisons with previous studies

Our sample encompasses those surveyed by Oreskes (2004) and Schulte (2008) and we can therefore directly compare the results. Oreskes (2004) analyzed 928 papers from 1993 to 2003. Over the same period, we found 932 papers matching the search phrase ‘global climate change’ (papers continue to be added to the ISI database). From that subset we eliminated 38 papers that were not peer-reviewed, climate-related or had no abstract. Of the remaining 894, none rejected the consensus, consistent with Oreskes’ result. Oreskes determined that 75% of papers endorsed the consensus, based on the assumption that mitigation and impact papers implicitly endorse the consensus. By comparison, we found that 28% of the 894 abstracts endorsed AGW while 72% expressed no position. Among the 71 papers that received self-ratings from authors, 69% endorse AGW, comparable to Oreskes’ estimate of 75% endorsements.

An analysis of 539 ‘global climate change’ abstracts from the Web of Science database over January 2004 to mid-February 2007 found 45% endorsement and 6% rejection (Schulte 2008). Our analysis over a similar period (including all of February 2007) produced 529 papers—the reason for this discrepancy is unclear as Schulte’s exact methodology is not provided. Schulte estimated a higher percentage of endorsements and rejections, possibly because the strict methodology we adopted led to a greater number of ‘No Position’ abstracts. Schulte also found a significantly greater number of rejection papers, including 6 explicit rejections compared to our 0 explicit rejections. See the supplementary information (available at 8/024024/mmedia) for a tabulated comparison of results. Among 58 self-rated papers, only one (1.7%) rejected AGW in this sample. Over the period of January 2004 to February 2007, among ‘global climate change’ papers that state a position on AGW, we found 97% endorsements.

5. Conclusion

The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012). Contributing to this ‘consensus gap’ are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to ‘reposition global warming as theory (not fact)’. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010). The situation is exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue, where the normative practice of providing opposing sides with equal attention has allowed a vocal minority to have their views amplified (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004). While there are indications that the situation has improved in the UK and USA prestige press (Boykoff 2007), the UK tabloid press showed no indication of improvement from 2000 to 2006 (Boykoff and Mansfield 2008).

The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is ‘. . . on the point of collapse’ (Oddie 2012) while ‘. . . the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year’ (Allegre et al 2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.


Thanks to James Powell for his invaluable contribution to this analysis, Stephan Lewandowsky for his comments and to those who assisted with collecting email addresses and rating abstracts: Ari Jokimaki, Riccardo Reitano, Rob Honeycutt, Wendy Cook, Phil Scadden, Glenn Tamblyn, Anne-Marie Blackburn, John Hartz, Steve Brown, George Morrison, Alexander C Coulter, Martin B Stolpe (to name just those who are not listed as (co-)author to this paper).


Allegre C et al 2012 No need to panic about global warming Wall Street Journal ( SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html, accessed 14 September 2012)

Anderegg W R L, Prall J W, Harold J and Schneider S H 2010 Expert credibility in climate change Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107 12107–9

Boykoff M T 2007 Flogging a dead norm? Newspaper coverage of anthropogenic climate change in the United States and United Kingdom from 2003 to 2006 Area 39 470–81

Boykoff M T and Boykoff J M 2004 Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press Glob. Environ. Change 14 125–36

Boykoff M T and Mansfield M 2008 ‘Ye Olde Hot Aire’: reporting on human contributions to climate change in the UK tabloid press Environ. Res. Lett. 3 024002

Bray D 2010 The scientific consensus of climate change revisited Environ. Sci. Policy 13 340–50

Brysse K, Oreskes N, O’Reilly J and Oppenheimer M 2012 Climate change prediction: erring on the side of least drama? Glob. Environ. Change 23 327–37

Ding D, Maibach E W, Zhao X, Roser-Renouf C and Leiserowitz A 2011 Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement Nature Clim. Change 1 462–5

Doran P and Zimmerman M 2009 Examining the scientific consensus on climate change EOS Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 90 22–3

Hansen J E 2007 Scientific reticence and sea level rise Environ. Res. Lett. 2 024002

Houghton J T, Ding Y, Griggs D J, Noguer M, van der Linden P J, Dai X, Maskell K and Johnson C A (ed) 2001 Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) (

Houghton J T, Meira Filho L G, Callander B A, Harris N, Kattenberg A and Maskell K (ed) 1996 Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) ( climate-changes-1995/ipcc-2nd-assessment/ 2nd-assessment-en.pdf)

Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Feinberg G and Howe P 2012 Climate change in the American mind: Americans’ global warming beliefs and attitudes in September 2012 Yale Project on Climate Change Communication (New Haven, CT: Yale University and George Mason University) ( Climate-Beliefs-September-2012.pdf)

Lewandowsky S, Gilles G and Vaughan S 2012 The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science Nature Clim. Change 3 399–404

Nisbet M C and Myers T 2007 The polls—trends—twenty years of public opinion about global warming Public Opin. Q. 71 444–70

Oddie W 2012 Is the ‘anthropogenic global warming’ consensus on the point of collapse? If so, this is just the right time for Chris Huhne to leave the Government Catholic Herald (www. E2%80%98anthropogenic-global-warming%E2%80% 99-consensus-on-the-point-of-collapse-if-so-this-is-just-theright- time-for-chris-huhne-to-leave-the-government/, accessed 14 November 2012)

Oreskes N 2004 Beyond the ivory tower. The scientific consensus on climate change Science 306 1686

Oreskes N 2007 The scientific consensus on climate change: how do we know we’re not wrong? Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) ( resources/globalwarming/oreskes-chapter-4.pdf)

Oreskes N 2010 My facts are better than your facts: spreading good news about global warming How Do Facts Travel? ed M S Morgan and P Howlett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) pp 135–66 ( chapter.jsf?bid=CBO9780511762154& cid=CBO9780511762154A016)

Pew 2012 More Say There is Solid Evidence of Global Warming (Washington, DC: Pew Research Center for the People & the Press) ( 20Global%20Warming%20Release.pdf)

Schulte K-M 2008 Scientific consensus on climate change? Energy Environ. 19 281–6

Shwed U and Bearman P S 2010 The temporal structure of scientific consensus formation Am. Sociol. Rev. 75 817–40

Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt K B, Tignor M and Miller H L (ed) 2007 Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) ( and data/publications ipcc fourth assessment report wg1 report the physical science basis.htm)


John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A. Green5, Mark Richardson6, Barbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2, Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9

1 Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, Australia
2 Skeptical Science, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
3 School of Psychology, University of Western Australia, Australia
4 Tetra Tech, Incorporated, McClellan, CA, USA
5 Department of Chemistry, Michigan Technological University, USA
6 Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, UK
7 Department of Geography, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada
8 Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, USA
9 Salt Spring Consulting Ltd, Salt Spring Island, BC, Canada

|Back to TITLE|

Page 1      Page 2      Page 3      Page 4      Page 5      Page 6      Page 7      Page 8      Page 9

Supplement 1      Supplement 2      Supplement 3      Supplement 4      Supplement 5      Supplement 6

PelicanWeb Home Page

Bookmark and Share

"All the progress in the world
is not worth the cry of a hungry child."

Fyodor Dostoyevsky (Russia, 1821-1881)


Write to the Editor
Send email to Subscribe
Send email to Unsubscribe
Link to the Google Groups Website
Link to the PelicanWeb Home Page

Creative Commons License
ISSN 2165-9672

Page 4      



Subscribe to the
Mother Pelican Journal
via the Solidarity-Sustainability Group

Enter your email address: