Consensus study: fewer than one per cent of climate studies reject human causes
Research suggests support for climate change action increases if the public is aware of a scientific consensus on the evidence for human causes. But how many scientists really agree? A new study, out today, shows very few studies reject that climate change is human caused, and hopes to promote this message by encouraging the public to get involved.
A team of volunteers from climate science blog, Skeptical Science, rated the abstracts of nearly 12,000 peer-reviewed papers based on their level of agreement that climate change is human caused. The new study aims to identify the level of consensus by analysing 20 years of climate change literature.
Calculating consensus
The researchers found that of those papers that made an explicit statement on the causes of climate change, 97 per cent agreed it was down to human activity. But working out exactly how many scientists agree with that view can be a tricky business.
The study’s lead author, Professor John Cook of the University of Queensland, says:
“[The result shows] the number of papers rejecting the consensus on human caused climate change is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research”.
But the paper’s topline is perhaps more complex. While 97 per cent of those that discuss whether or not humans are causing climate change agreed that they are, the vast majority of papers surveyed – about two-thirds – didn’t express any view on the causes of climate change.
Cook says he thinks the reason such a large proportion of papers don’t take a position is that the debate has “moved on”. He says:
“The ‘acceptance’ of human-induced climate change is so widespread in scientific circles that many scientists don’t even bother to reiterate this fact.”
And when those papers are included, the proportion of studies that disagree that humans are causing climate change looks even smaller – less than one per cent.
Adam Corner from the University of Cardiff and Climate Outreach & Information Network says this should help close the gap between what the public think the level of consensus is and reality. He tells Carbon Brief:
“It’s well known that people perceive more uncertainty among climate scientists than there actually is. Being able to say that out of 12,000 papers, only a few percent dispute human influence on the climate, is an extremely useful communications tool.”
Ask the authors
The study also went one step further and asked authors whether or not they thought their papers agreed humans were causing climate change.
Only 2.4 per cent of authors who responded to their request said their papers disagreed that humans were responsible for climate change. Moreover, the majority of authors who had been classified as not having a position actually said their papers agreed climate change is caused by human activity.
Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London, tells us:
“This study highlights the huge mismatch between the public perception that a large proportion of scientists are sceptical of anthropogenic climate change and the extremely small number who see evidence for such scepticism.”
Try it yourself
Classifying which papers agree and disagree with the consensus can be tough when lots of different analysts – 24 in total – looked at the papers. That’s why Skeptical Science has made the paper free to access and is inviting others to get involved.
Mark Richardson from the University of Reading, who is a co-author on the paper, tells us:
“Work should always be questioned and tested and that is why Skeptical Science will share all the data we possibly can. All of the summaries (abstracts) of the papers and our ratings will go up, and we invite everyone to come take a look and rate some papers for themselves.”
Cook hopes this latest study – and the efforts to encourage the public to have a go themselves – will go some way to close the “gaping chasm between the actual consensus and the public perception”.