Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis
So far Altmetric has seen 1 story.
The Conversation

When it comes to arguing about climate science, it would be better to play the science, not the scientists. MaRS Discovery Distr ..

So far Altmetric has seen 5 posts from 4 blogs.

Update - see below.Anthony Watts is all excited (archived here, latest here) because economist Richard Tol finally found a ..

An updated version of this post has been published at The Guardian “There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on ..

Yesterday, we published a list of 24 errors in Tol's critique of our consensus paper Quantifying the consensus on anth ..

In the 2000s, the question of how strong agreement is among climate scientists that climate change is happening and that it's ..

by Will Howard “Consensus” means different things to different people — and herein lies the problem.   Yo ..

So far Altmetric has seen 106 tweets from 83 accounts with an upper bound of 195,083 combined followers.

@arthursmith correct result is here http://t.co/37ePyWkGj2 @shubclimate @theresphysics

Lots of excitement about 1 sentence http://t.co/37ePyWkGj2 I'll take it the rest of the paper stands unchallenged

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis http://t.co/Jz9kg1uypY

Lots of excitement about 1 sentence http://t.co/37ePyWkGj2 I'll take it the rest of the paper stands unchallenged

Lots of excitement about 1 sentence http://t.co/37ePyWkGj2 I'll take it the rest of the paper stands unchallenged

Interesting conclusion in "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature…" EnergyPolicy http://t.co/PcGpV7yxcN

Another lie exposed, the 97% consensus on #ClimateChange was made up. http://t.co/yCA68n93F3 #AGW

Another lie exposed, the 97% consensus on #ClimateChange was made up. http://t.co/yCA68n93F3 #AGW

The vacuous 97% consensus debate continues. But I guess it keeps some people out of trouble. http://t.co/n66hJg7VwE

Just seems these 'quantify precisely the consensus' arguments are slightly missing the point... http://t.co/5RbMhzzXF5

Tol's reanalysis of 97% consensus: "Correcting for misclassification, 95% of papers are silent on the hypothesis." http://t.co/GwBqwgQqtO

Tol's reanalysis of 97% consensus: "Correcting for misclassification, 95% of papers are silent on the hypothesis." http://t.co/GwBqwgQqtO

Tol's reanalysis of 97% consensus: "Correcting for misclassification, 95% of papers are silent on the hypothesis." http://t.co/GwBqwgQqtO

Tol's reanalysis of 97% consensus: "Correcting for misclassification, 95% of papers are silent on the hypothesis." http://t.co/GwBqwgQqtO

Tol: "I have very little reason to doubt the consensus is correct. Cook et al however, failed to demonstrate this." http://t.co/GwBqwgQqtO

Tol's reanalysis of 97% consensus: "Correcting for misclassification, 95% of papers are silent on the hypothesis." http://t.co/GwBqwgQqtO

Tol's reanalysis of 97% consensus: "Correcting for misclassification, 95% of papers are silent on the hypothesis." http://t.co/GwBqwgQqtO

Tol's reanalysis of 97% consensus: "Correcting for misclassification, 95% of papers are silent on the hypothesis." http://t.co/GwBqwgQqtO

Tol's reanalysis of 97% consensus: "Correcting for misclassification, 95% of papers are silent on the hypothesis." http://t.co/GwBqwgQqtO

Tol's reanalysis of 97% consensus: "Correcting for misclassification, 95% of papers are silent on the hypothesis." http://t.co/GwBqwgQqtO

Tol's reanalysis of 97% consensus: "Correcting for misclassification, 95% of papers are silent on the hypothesis." http://t.co/GwBqwgQqtO

Tol's reanalysis of 97% consensus: "Correcting for misclassification, 95% of papers are silent on the hypothesis." http://t.co/GwBqwgQqtO

Tol's reanalysis of 97% consensus: "Correcting for misclassification, 95% of papers are silent on the hypothesis." http://t.co/GwBqwgQqtO

Tol's reanalysis of 97% consensus: "Correcting for misclassification, 95% of papers are silent on the hypothesis." http://t.co/GwBqwgQqtO

Tol's reanalysis of 97% consensus: "Correcting for misclassification, 95% of papers are silent on the hypothesis." http://t.co/GwBqwgQqtO

"97%ScientistsBelieveAGW" "INVALID" #WarmistLIE by #Sciencedeniers; http://t.co/tyLZKveZhx SCIENTIFIC WORK SHOWS RT! http://t.co/l22etidHj7

"97%ScientistsBelieveAGW" "INVALID" #WarmistLIE by #Sciencedeniers; http://t.co/tyLZKveZhx SCIENTIFIC WORK SHOWS RT! http://t.co/l22etidHj7

"97%ScientistsBelieveAGW" "INVALID" #WarmistLIE by #Sciencedeniers; http://t.co/tyLZKveZhx SCIENTIFIC WORK SHOWS RT! http://t.co/l22etidHj7

"97%ScientistsBelieveAGW" "INVALID" #WarmistLIE by #Sciencedeniers; http://t.co/tyLZKveZhx SCIENTIFIC WORK SHOWS RT! http://t.co/l22etidHj7

"97%ScientistsBelieveAGW" "INVALID" #WarmistLIE by #Sciencedeniers; http://t.co/tyLZKveZhx SCIENTIFIC WORK SHOWS RT! http://t.co/l22etidHj7

Tol's reanalysis of 97% consensus: "Correcting for misclassification, 95% of papers are silent on the hypothesis." http://t.co/GwBqwgQqtO

"97%ScientistsBelieveAGW" "INVALID" #WarmistLIE by #Sciencedeniers; http://t.co/tyLZKveZhx SCIENTIFIC WORK SHOWS RT! http://t.co/l22etidHj7

"97%ScientistsBelieveAGW" "INVALID" #WarmistLIE by #Sciencedeniers; http://t.co/tyLZKveZhx SCIENTIFIC WORK SHOWS RT! http://t.co/l22etidHj7

Tol's reanalysis of 97% consensus: "Correcting for misclassification, 95% of papers are silent on the hypothesis." http://t.co/GwBqwgQqtO

Tol's reanalysis of 97% consensus: "Correcting for misclassification, 95% of papers are silent on the hypothesis." http://t.co/GwBqwgQqtO

impt takeaway from @RichardTol: "Climate policy will not succeed unless it has broad societal support..." http://t.co/G59tf5egn9

"97%ScientistsBelieveAGW" "INVALID" #WarmistLIE by #Sciencedeniers SHOWS PROPER ANALYSIS http://t.co/tyLZKveZhx RT! http://t.co/l22etidHj7

Tol's reanalysis of 97% consensus: "Correcting for misclassification, 95% of papers are silent on the hypothesis." http://t.co/GwBqwgQqtO

ScienceDirect: Global warming, Cook & al. paper claiming that there is a 97% consensus is a statistical train wreck http://t.co/D17KULjSfn

Tol's reanalysis of 97% consensus: "Correcting for misclassification, 95% of papers are silent on the hypothesis." http://t.co/GwBqwgQqtO

"97%ScientistsBelieveAGW" "INVALID" #WarmistLIE #Sciencedeniers SHOWS PROPER ANALYSIS http://t.co/tyLZKveZhx … RT! http://t.co/l22etidHj7

"97%ScientistsBelieveAGW" "INVALID" #WarmistLIE #Sciencedeniers SHOWS PROPER ANALYSIS http://t.co/tyLZKveZhx … RT! http://t.co/l22etidHj7

Tol's reanalysis of 97% consensus: "Correcting for misclassification, 95% of papers are silent on the hypothesis." http://t.co/GwBqwgQqtO

Tol's reanalysis of 97% consensus: "Correcting for misclassification, 95% of papers are silent on the hypothesis." http://t.co/GwBqwgQqtO

"97%ScientistsBelieveAGW" "INVALID" #WarmistLIE by #Sciencedeniers SHOWS PROPER ANALYSIS http://t.co/tyLZKveZhx RT! http://t.co/l22etidHj7

"97%ScientistsBelieveAGW" "INVALID" #WarmistLIE by #Sciencedeniers SHOWS PROPER ANALYSIS http://t.co/tyLZKveZhx RT! http://t.co/l22etidHj7

Tol's reanalysis of 97% consensus: "Correcting for misclassification, 95% of papers are silent on the hypothesis." http://t.co/GwBqwgQqtO

Tol's reanalysis of 97% consensus: "Correcting for misclassification, 95% of papers are silent on the hypothesis." http://t.co/GwBqwgQqtO

@sdempsey raters generated the patterns, authors did not pay attention, all described here http://t.co/37ePyWkGj2

Tol's reanalysis of 97% consensus: "Correcting for misclassification, 95% of papers are silent on the hypothesis." http://t.co/GwBqwgQqtO

@KurtSchlichter @mattisaac Not much. All "97% consensus" studies have been utterly demolished. The latest bulldozer: http://t.co/0LgWuLqPSa

"97%ScientistsBelieveAGW" IS INVALID #WarmistLIE #ScienceDenial says PROPER ANALYSIS http://t.co/tyLZKveZhx … … RT! http://t.co/l22etidHj7

"97%ScientistsBelieveAGW" IS INVALID #WarmistLIE #ScienceDenial says PROPER ANALYSIS http://t.co/tyLZKveZhx … … RT! http://t.co/l22etidHj7

"97%ScientistsBelieveAGW" IS INVALID #WarmistLIE #ScienceDenial says PROPER ANALYSIS http://t.co/tyLZKveZhx … … RT! http://t.co/l22etidHj7

@KissStephanie IPCC lead author Richard Tol's paper debunking Cook's 97% paper: http://t.co/YvlR6g2UMa “This claim.. does not stand.”

@KissStephanie IPCC lead author Richard Tol's paper debunking Cook's 97% paper: http://t.co/YvlR6g2UMa “This claim.. does not stand.”

@KissStephanie IPCC lead author Richard Tol's paper debunking Cook's 97% paper: http://t.co/YvlR6g2UMa “This claim.. does not stand.”

So far Altmetric has seen 1 public wall post.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis

Abstract A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Enviro ..

Twitter attention
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of tweeters who shared this article. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
# Country As %
1 US 25%
2 GB 19%
3 CA 6%
4 AU 2%
5 FI 1%
5 DK 1%
5 CH 1%
5 DE 1%
5 IN 1%
Unknown 40%
Tweeter demographics
Type Count As %
Members of the public 69 83%
Scientists 13 15%
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) 1 1%
What's this page for?

It pulls together some of the online activity around this article. It is maintained by Altmetric. We collect relevant information from social media sites, blogs, newspapers, magazines and more.

Having one place where you can see all of the comments on or shares of an article makes it easier to see what others think of the work.

To help you put the data in context we've given the article an Altmetric score, which is our measure of the quality & quantity of online attention that it has received. The scoring algorithm is relatively straightforward and takes things like the relative reach of different data sources into account.

Note that the Altmetric score can't tell you anything about the quality of the article though reading through the different tabs might.

Can I be alerted if anybody mentions this paper?

Yes. If you'd like to be alerted when somebody shares or discusses this paper then you can sign up for email alerts.

You can do this for more than one paper. Alerts are sent out once a day if and only if there has been some activity around one of the papers you want to watch.

You've missed a news story, who can I speak to?

If you're waiting for a tweet or blog post to appear then give it a day: we try to pick up mentions as quickly as possible but it can take some time to process all of the information we collect, especially at peak times.

If more than a day has passed then please fill in this form - it will go to our support team who will take a look and update your article details page as soon as possible.

You can also reach out on Twitter to @altmetric.

The Altmetric score is one measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that this article has received. You can read about how Altmetric scores are calculated here.

This article scored 104.35

The context below was calculated when this article was last mentioned on 24th October 2014

Compared to all articles in Energy Policy
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,053 articles from this journal. They typically receive a little less attention than average, with a mean score of 4.2 vs the global average of 5.0. This article has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers. It's actually the highest scoring article in this journal that we've seen so far.
In the
99%ile
Ranks
1st
All articles of a similar age
Older articles will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this score to the 80,442 tracked articles that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any journal. This article has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
In the
98%ile
Ranks
815th
All articles
More generally, Altmetric has tracked 2,668,383 articles across all journals so far. Compared to these this article has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all articles ever tracked by Altmetric.
In the
99%ile
Score in context
Is one of the highest ever scores in this journal (ranked #1 of 1,053)
show more...
Mentioned by
Readers on
0 Mendeley
0 CiteULike
Track this article