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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-6
Number of pages6
JournalEnvironmental Research Letters
Volume11
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Comment on 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature''. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this