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

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-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.
LanguageEnglish
Pages1-6
Number of pages6
JournalEnvironmental Research Letters
Volume11
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016

Fingerprint

Global Warming
Literature
Information use
Global warming
global warming
Environ
test

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",

}

Comment on 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature'. / Tol, R.S.J.

In: Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2016, p. 1-6.

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

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

VL - 11

SP - 1

EP - 6

JO - Environmental Research Letters

T2 - Environmental Research Letters

JF - Environmental Research Letters

SN - 1748-9326

IS - 4

ER -