InstructorQUANTIFYING THE CONSENSUS ON ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING IN THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE: A CRITICAL REVIEW
The subject of climate change has been a topic of research among several scholars. Cook et al., (2013) in their article “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature” focus on the subject of Anthropogenic Global Warming by analyzing scientific studies on the subject. The researchers analyze literature from 11,944 abstracts from 1991-201. The abstracts analyzed express both support and dismissal of AGW, but one of the primary consensuses is human population actions are the primary source of global warming. This critical review analyzes various aspects of the articles such as aims, approaches, and arguments presented in the research. .
The article is based on the examination of examine scientific studies that focus on the subject as a way of quantifying and evaluating the extent of progress of consensus in the last twenty years. This is a particular objective that narrows down from the broad subject of AGW. The authors focus on the subject of AGW by looking at studies that match the keyword “global climate change” or “global warming” (Cook et al., 2013). In my educated opinion, I think that the objective happens to be interesting because it helps the researchers do the most wide-ranging study of the subject to date. Moreover, the goal is based on the notion that there has been a lack of compromise amongst scientists on the underlying events that lead to global climate change. The objective also covers an existing research gap that is, one that looks at the compromise among the AGW published literature and this, therefore, I think that this warrants the study.
Although Cook et al., (2013) use one objective in their study; they present a thorough analysis in the introduction part of the study that makes a reader get an in-depth understanding of the reasoning behind the study. The introduction part is constant with the intent that the researchers formulate. Moreover, the goal is founded on the idea that there is a lack of harmony in the US public. According to Nisbet and Myers 2007, p.451), 67% of the American public has the notion that there is a lack of accord among scientists on the origin of global warming. Cook et al., (2013) seeks to address this lack of consensus by examining the 11.944 abstracts of published articles. It is through the objective that the researchers try to find a balance between the disagreeing parties. Additionally, the objective will, in the end, educate the public on why the scientists disagree, and this may shape their opinion on the subject to some extent.
The approach that the researchers used was based on several steps. The initial step in the methodology process was performed in March 2012 through the ISI web. The aim of conducting the search was to find studies from 1991-2011 that contained the keywords “global climate change” or “global warming” (Cook et al. 2013). The use of keywords in research is very important because it enables researchers to establish the most reliable sources to use when making their arguments. The keywords used in the article were a great way to start off the research since without the keyword the researcher could have found very broad articles about the subject. The other criterion used in the approach to the study was to limit the article type to the world ‘article’. This ensured that the results of the search excluded results of books and other documents (Cook et al., 2013). I think that was important because it ensured that the authors only used peer-reviewed articles in their research that in turn made the results presented in the article reliable.
The other step involved in the methodology of the research was to categorize the article. The articles were categorized into either their research category or the degree of endorsement of AGW (Cook et al., 2013). In my estimation, this categorization was effective because it enabled the authors to establish a ground to base their argument. The articles were then distributed randomly through a web-based arrangement to individual who would rate. It is of merit to note that the authors excluded the information of the author, journal affiliation as well as the date of publication; only the title and the abstract were visible (Cook et al., 2013). In my estimation, the anonymity of the articles was very significant because the raters were able to give unbiased opinions. If the information could have been displayed, then raters could have given an unreliable opinion. Nevertheless, I also think that this did not help the authors in any way because we live in a world where we can search the web and establish all the information we require about a journal article. The fact that the authors have not explained how this was prevented cannot be underestimated, and this may have impacted on the overall results.
In total, the researchers made use of 24 autonomous raters, and initial ratings indicated that 27% disagreed on research category while 33% disagreed on the support of AGW. Nevertheless, the disagreeing raters were then given a chance to review their views by comparing and justifying them to a web system and 11% and 16% failed to change their views. These views were given to an intermediary for a final review (Cook et al., 2013). I think that the reality that the authors do not mention who the independent reviewers were is another undoing for the research. One can conclude that the independent reviewers did not qualify to take part in the study. I think that Cook et al. should be specific in terms of how the independent reviewers were selected. However, I think that the actuality that the authors of the article were invited to give an alternative rating of their work is great.
The results from the ISI web search generated 12,465 articles. However, 186 articles were filtered on the basis that they were not peer-reviewed while 288 and 42 articles were further filtered because they were not related to climate variation or they did not have an abstract respectively (Cook et al., 2013). I think that the importance of using peer-reviewed journal articles is underscored in this research. According to Solomon (2007), it is important to use peer-reviewed journal articles in research because peers have validated the information contained in the articles. Moreover, I think that the utilization of peer-reviewed journal article in the research builds a sense of scientific community. By using information that is authored by their peer, the authors demonstrate the respect that they have for their peers.
After the filtering process had been done, the researchers remained with 11,944 articles authored by 29, 803 scholars in the 1980s journals. To simply the scrutiny of the articles, the authors categorized the articles into three. The categories included implicit along with explicit endorsements, no position as well as the rejection of AGW. 97.1% of the implicit as well as explicit endorsement category had an accord on abstracts that had no AGW while 98.4% had a consensus on abstracts that had AGW (Cook et al., 2013). I think that these results point out to the reality that scientists agree on the subject of AGW and the analysis by (Cook et al., 2013) endorses this position. Additionally, the results reveal that AGW should be a source of concern for authorities because global warming has been proven to take place.
The researchers also invited 8547 authors to take part in the study by giving a self-rating of their articles. Only 1200 (14%) responded to the invitations and 97.2% recommended the accord while 53.8% who had authored no position papers expressed consensus. Moreover, 96.4% endorsed the concept of AGW (Cook et al. 2013). I think that the low response rate by the authors of the articles can be attributed to various reasons. For example, it can be that the authors felt that they had already expressed their opinions and did not need to reaffirm their position. Moreover, the low response rate can also be attributed to the fact that some of the authors did not respond within the timeline of the research. However, these are just assumptions as (Cook et al., fail to mention any reasons why the authors may have not responded. I think that the researchers should have been included in the limitations section of the article.
A discussion of the results reveals that many of the abstract analyzed reveal that many of them express no position when it comes to AGW. This can be attributed to the fact that scientific studies “generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees’ (Oreskes 2007, p.72). Moreover, Cook et al., (2013) recognize that AGW no longer counts as a controversial issue among scientists hence they tend to focus on other elements of the study. The researchers then make a comparison the studies and reveal that there is 97% consensus on the concept of AGW. In my estimation, the role of scientific research is to generate new knowledge among people. I think that this aspect is pointed out the Cook et al., study as they note that the researchers do not focus on topics that everyone agrees on as this will not lead to the discovery of any new knowledge.
One of the most interesting aspects of the study is that the authors recognize the uncertainties that their research faces and also share on how the difficulties were dealt with. The first uncertainty that the research was faced with is the nonexistence of transparency in the abstract. Some of the abstracts were too short while come used ambiguous language making it hard for the researchers to establish the authors intended meaning. However, this issue was solved when as self-rating of the abstracts as performed. The other uncertainty in the paper was the lack of a representative sample in some of the studies and the subjectivity in the rating of the articles (Cook et al., 2013). In my estimation, the recognition of the limitations in any research is very important because it reveals the common obstacle that researchers face when undertaking their research. Moreover, the fact that the authors have shared with us how they tackled the obstacles is even more interesting because we get to learn how we can counter the obstacles that we face during our research.
Cook et al., (2013) conclude their paper by noting that climate change policies to a large extent depend on the public insights of AGW. This view is echoed by Ding et al., (2011) who note that without public support, climate change policies will stand no chance of implementation. The other conclusion that the authors make is that regardless of the gap in public consensus on AGW, scientists, at least, agree that human doings is the primary cause of climate change. The authors also point out on the mere campaigns to discredit the concept of global warming; for example, Western Fuels Association in 1991 carried out a $510,000 campaign to discredit the concept of global warming as a theory. The other conclusion that the authors make is the media plays a significant role in shaping the public perceptions about the concept of climate and should be careful in the way that they amplify opposing views of the subject. In my estimation, I think that this conclusion bounds all the main arguments presented in the article. This helps the authors also establish the credibility of the arguments presented in the article.
Conclusively, I think that Cook et al. article is not only timely but also insightful on the subject of AGW. The researchers present an excellent analysis of the objective by using facts as well as reliable sources to support their argument. Moreover, I think that the authors employed one of the best approaches when selecting the articles to sample for the study. In general, I think that the results presented in the study are reliable since the authors employ relevant information in the study. I also think that it is the time the public supported climate change policies not for our benefits but that of future generations.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., Way, R., Jacobs, P. and Skuce, A. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environ. Res. Lett., 8(2), p.024024.
Ding D, Maibach E W, Zhao X, Roser-Renouf C and Leiserowitz A 2011 Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement Nature Clim. Change 1 462–5
Nisbet, M. and Myers, T. (2007). The Polls-Trends: Twenty Years of Public Opinion about Global Warming. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(3), pp.444-470.
Oreskes N (2007). The scientific consensus on climate change: how do we know we’re not wrong? Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) (www.lpl.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/resources/globalwarming/oreskes-chapter-4.pdf)
Solomon, D. (2007). The Role of Peer Review for Scholarly Journals in the Information Age. The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 10(1).
