Expert credibility in climate change

By William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, J. Harold, S. Schneider. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2010

809 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/77665494365cff0b9a50332bffc5f22b2ec492f3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Global and Planetary Change

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Determinants and Measurement of Climate Change Risk Perception, Worry, and Concern (2017, background): “For example, although many independent studies have shown that over 97% of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is happening (e.g., Anderegg et al., 2010; Cook et al., 2016; Powell, 2016), only about half of Americans share this belief (Leiserowitz et al., 2016).”
Resources and Capabilities of Triple Bottom Line Firms: Going Over Old or Breaking New Ground? (2015, background): “Despite some lingering public doubt, scientists are in almost complete agreement that humans have caused an ominous warming trend in the earth’s climate, one that is likely to be irreversible (Anderegg et al. 2010; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2013).”
Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community (2015, background): “Uncertainty arising out of perceived expert disagreement is particularly effective at generating public doubt about an issue.”
Climate change accounting research: keeping it interesting and different (2011, background): “…appears to accept the primary conclusions of the IPCC that it is “very likely” that “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average temperature over the second half of the 20th century is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Anderegg et al., 2010; see also Oreskes, 2004).”
Three maps and three misunderstandings: A digital mapping of climate diplomacy (2014, background): “…provides the most consistent and detailed reporting of the proceedings of the negotiations of the United limited to more ‘‘traditional’’ datasets extracted from bibliographic archives (see, for example, Anderegg et al., 2010; Bjurstro ¨ m and Polk, 2011; Li et al., 2011; Rogers and Marres, 2000).”
Climate Change Sentiment on Twitter: An Unsolicited Public Opinion Poll (2015, background): “Words uncovered by our analysis suggest that responses to climate change news are predominately from climate change activists rather than climate change deniers, indicating that Twitter is a valuable resource for the spread of climate change awareness.”
Climate Change Research in View of Bibliometrics (2016, methodology): “Bjurström and Polk (2011a, 2011b) addressed the interdisciplinarity of climate change research by studying the referenced journals in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001) via co-citation analysis.”
How to communicate the scientific consensus on climate change: plain facts, pie charts or metaphors? (2014, result): “2013) – a finding consistent with results of earlier surveys of the scientific literature on climate change (Oreskes 2004; Anderegg et al. 2010; Doran and Zimmerman 2009).”