![]() ![]() to write and speak about the scientific consensus on climate change, I was. 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. However, the same expertise that makes a scientist an appropriate sentinel in. Credentialed scientists, having devoted much of their careers to a certain area, with multiple relevant peer-reviewed publications, should be deemed core experts. Thousands of experts have tested hypotheses, gathered evidence, constructed models, debated results, and reviewed one another’s work. ( 1) employed suspect methodology that treated publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise. Experts from across the university, including key authors and contributors to the IPCC’s report voiced concerns over the impact of delay. Scientists have studied global warming for more than 100 years. ![]() 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. The science is clear: climate change is happening. 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. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |