Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Jul 6;107(27):12107-9.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107. Epub 2010 Jun 21.

Expert credibility in climate change

Affiliations

Expert credibility in climate change

William R L Anderegg et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. .

Abstract

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Distribution of the number of researchers (n = 908) in convinced by the evidence (CE) of anthropogenic climate change and unconvinced by the evidence (UE) categories with a given number of total climate publications. Tick marks indicate the center of right-inclusive categories (e.g., 20–50, 51–100, 101–150, etc.).
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Distribution of the number of the top 50 most-published researchers from CE and UE categories with a given number of total climate publications. Tick marks indicate the center of right-inclusive categories (e.g., 20–50, 51–100, 101–150, etc.).
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
Distribution of the number of researchers (n = 908) in CE and UE categories with a given number times cited for each researcher's average of the first through fourth most-cited papers. Tick marks indicate the center of right-inclusive categories (e.g., 0–50, 51–100, 101–150, etc.), stepped by increments of 50 until 1,000 citations, and 500 thereafter.

Comment in

  • Climate denier, skeptic, or contrarian?
    O'Neill SJ, Boykoff M. O'Neill SJ, et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Sep 28;107(39):E151; author reply E152. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1010507107. Epub 2010 Aug 31. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010. PMID: 20807754 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
  • Expert credibility and truth.
    Aarstad J. Aarstad J. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Nov 23;107(47):E176; author reply E177. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1012156107. Epub 2010 Nov 8. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010. PMID: 21059951 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
  • Regarding Anderegg et al. and climate change credibility.
    Bodenstein L. Bodenstein L. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Dec 28;107(52):E188; author reply E189. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1013268108. Epub 2010 Dec 20. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010. PMID: 21173280 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

References

    1. Oreskes N. Beyond the ivory tower. The scientific consensus on climate change. Science. 2004;306:1686. - PubMed
    1. Doran PT, Zimmerman MK. Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. Eos Trans AGU. 2009;90:22–23.
    1. IPCC . Summary for policymakers. In: Solomon S, et al., editors. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ Press; 2007. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
    1. Pew Research Center for People and the Press Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media. Pew Research Center. 2009. [Accessed December 1, 2009]. Available at http://people-press.org/report/528/
    1. Dunlap RE, McCright AM. A widening gap: Republican and Democratic views on climate change. Environment. 2008;50:26–35.

Publication types