So, some guys did a study on who are the top names in climate sciences, by how many publications and how many cites they have etc.. They also looked at what published petitions people had signed so they could have an easy way to check their views and found out that “climate sceptics” have few cited climate publications. Pretty straightforward, as all this is public knowledge.
Naturally it doesn’t tell anything directly about a science. It’s just a survey or a meta research paper.
The paper here.
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. 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. 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 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.
Stoat has more. And Michael Tobis more and more elaborately and in a larger view.
I’ll close the comments for a while as I’m spending the midsummer elsewhere and these kind of posts tend to attract comments that have to be responded.