Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

TLDR

The study examines the evolution of scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming by analyzing 11,944 peer‑reviewed climate abstracts from 1991–2011. The authors reviewed these abstracts and then invited the original authors to rate their own papers. Among the abstracts, 66.4 % were neutral, 32.6 % endorsed AGW, 0.7 % rejected it, and 0.3 % were uncertain; of those taking a stance, 97.1 % endorsed the consensus, a pattern mirrored in self‑rated papers (97.2 % endorsement, 35.5 % neutral) with a slight upward trend over time and an almost negligible fraction rejecting the consensus.

Abstract

Abstract 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.