Comment on 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature'

R.S.J. Tol

doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001

Comment on 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature'

Research output: Contribution to Journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

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.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1-6
Number of pages	6
Journal	Environmental Research Letters
Volume	11
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001
Publication status	Published - 2016

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001

Persistent URL (handle)

Persistent link

Cite this

@article{962f8180703549e68a8d45d2f51bf800,

title = "Comment on 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature'",

abstract = "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 = "R.S.J. Tol",

year = "2016",

doi = "10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001",

language = "English",

volume = "11",

pages = "1--6",

journal = "Environmental Research Letters",

issn = "1748-9326",

publisher = "IOP Publishing Ltd.",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comment on 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature'

AU - Tol, R.S.J.

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

U2 - 10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001

DO - 10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001

M3 - Article

SN - 1748-9326

VL - 11

SP - 1

EP - 6

JO - Environmental Research Letters

JF - Environmental Research Letters

IS - 4

ER -