Is There Still a Scientific Consensus on Global Warming?Back in 2005 (which is a loooong time ago in Internet time), Naomi Oreskes published a famous paper in Science titled "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". It's a meta-study that looked at 928 scientific papers between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that, despite what the media often implied, there was a very strong consensus among scientists about climate change, with none of the papers disagreeing with consensus position.
Fast-forward to the present, and James Lawrence Powell has done a similar meta-study, but including a lot more peer-reviewed papers (thousands have been published since 2003). (You can see his methodology here.)
What did he find? Well, out of 13,950 scientific papers published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012, he found 24, or 0.17%, or 1 in 581, that clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. That last part is important, as CO2 is central to the mainstream scientific view on global warming.
The pie chart above is a good visual representation of the very strong scientific consensus.
"If one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science."
And if corroborated over time, such a paper would probably deserve a Nobel prize... Yet these 24 papers are on average less-cited than the rest of the 13,950 papers.
Remember this the next time the media tries to present things as if scientists are split on the issue.