File:Climate science opinion2.png

From Wikiclaim
Jump to: navigation, search
Original file(810 × 606 pixels, file size: 140 KB, MIME type: image/png)

This file is from Wikimedia Commons and may be used by other projects. The description on its file description page there is shown below.


This 2012 chart created by user Dragons flight was based on data from 2011. There are more recent studies including Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society (Adopted by AMS Council 20 August 2012)

Summary of the opinions from climate / earth scientists regarding climate change.

The Doran & Zimmerman 2009 study was done for a master's thesis and involved a 9-question survey. The 2009 peer reviewed publication that followed the study reported on 2 of the 9 questions. The study found, in part, that 96.4% of "climatologists who are active publishers on climate change" agree that mean global temperatures have risen "compared with pre-1800s levels", and that 97.4% (75 of 77) agree that human activity "is a significant contributing factor" in temperature change. The study concludes the distribution of answers to those survey questions implies that debate on the "role played by human activity is largely nonexistent" amongst climate experts.

The Anderegg et al 2010 source defined a scientist's expertise as determined by his or her number of climate publications. The top 50 scientists considered CE ("convinced by the evidence" in the terminology of the authors) wrote an average of 408 articles each which were submitted to and successfully published by climate journals. Scientists were counted as UE ("unconvinced by the evidence") if having signed a public "statement strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC." That resulted in a list of 472 UE scientists, of whom 5 were among the 200 most-published scientists in the study's sample, amounting to 2.5% when the other 195 (97.5%) were counted as CE.

That study's sample included 903 scientists counted as CE ("convinced by the evidence"). Scientists were assumed to be CE when in the list of those credited by the IPCC as having done research utilized by AR4 Working Group I. Such an assumption resulted in a list of 619 names, which, after adjusting for duplication, became a total of 903 when also adding in those who signed one of several statements supporting the IPCC.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2010

Author of chart: User:Dragons flight, March 2012

Converted to SVG.svg
This graph image could be re-created using vector graphics as an SVG file. This has several advantages; see Commons:Media for cleanup for more information. If an SVG form of this image is available, please upload it and afterwards replace this template with {{vector version available|new image name}}.
It is recommended to name the SVG file "Climate science opinion2.svg" – then the template Vector version available (or Vva) does not need the new image name parameter.


I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:
w:en:Creative Commons
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.
You are free:
  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

Update on December 7 2014

Expansion of comments re upload done today. (A) Change top line to "Opinions of Climate and Earth Scientists on Human Role in Global Warming". (B) Change "Significant human impact" to "Significant" and change "Little or no human effect" to "Little or none". (C) Adjust the Bray + Storch bar so it's 84%/16% rather than 94%/6%. These changes were discussed on the talk page for the Wikipedia article "Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change". Changes (A) and (B) are as per agreement on that talk page as of December 7 2014. The adjustment (C) was suggested by user Tillman; user Dragons flight -- the original author of the graphic -- acknowledged that the 94%/6% bar appeared to be an error. As of December 7 2014 the URL of the talk page discussion was Original attribution of course remains with Dragons flight; user Peter Gulutzan (the person doing this upload) made the above changes and hereby grants all permissions to publish these changes under free licence.


Add a one-line explanation of what this file represents

Items portrayed in this file


File history

Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.

current18:55, 7 December 2014Thumbnail for version as of 18:55, 7 December 2014810 × 606 (140 KB)Peter Gulutzan(A) Change top line to "Opinions of Climate and Earth Scientists on Human Role in Global Warming". (B) Change "Significant human impact" to "Significant" and change "Little or no human effect" to "Little or none". (C) Adjust the Bray + Storch bar so it...