Skip to main content
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses

New Research In

Physical Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Applied Mathematics
  • Applied Physical Sciences
  • Astronomy
  • Computer Sciences
  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics

Social Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Economic Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Political Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Social Sciences

Biological Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Anthropology
  • Applied Biological Sciences
  • Biochemistry
  • Biophysics and Computational Biology
  • Cell Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Evolution
  • Genetics
  • Immunology and Inflammation
  • Medical Sciences
  • Microbiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Pharmacology
  • Physiology
  • Plant Biology
  • Population Biology
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Systems Biology
Research Article

Expert credibility in climate change

William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider
PNAS first published June 21, 2010; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1003187107
William R. L. Anderegg
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: anderegg@stanford.edu shs@stanford.edu
James W. Prall
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jacob Harold
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephen H. Schneider
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: anderegg@stanford.edu shs@stanford.edu
  1. Contributed by Stephen H. Schneider, April 9, 2010 (sent for review December 22, 2009)

  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

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.

  • citation analyses
  • climate denier
  • expertise
  • publication analysis
  • scientific prominence

Footnotes

  • 1To whom correspondence may be addressed. E-mail: anderegg{at}stanford.edu or shs{at}stanford.edu.
  • Author contributions: W.R.L.A. and J.H designed research; W.R.L.A. and J.W.P. performed research; W.R.L.A. analyzed data; and W.R.L.A., J.W.P., J.H., and S.H.S. wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

  • This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107/-/DCSupplemental.

    Freely available online through the PNAS open access option.

    Next
    Back to top
    Article Alerts
    Email Article

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Expert credibility in climate change
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Citation Tools
    Expert credibility in climate change
    William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, Stephen H. Schneider
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jun 2010, 201003187; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
    Request Permissions
    Share
    Expert credibility in climate change
    William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, Stephen H. Schneider
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jun 2010, 201003187; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107
    Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Mendeley logo Mendeley
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 118 (1)
    Current Issue

    Submit

    Sign up for Article Alerts

    Jump to section

    • Article
    • Figures & SI
    • Info & Metrics
    • PDF

    You May Also be Interested in

    Conductor conducting a band
    Science and Culture: Astronomer-turned-filmmaker strives to ignite an interest in space
    His productions aim to promote science as a visual and emotional experience.
    Image credit: José Francisco Salgado (artist).
    News Feature: To understand the plight of insects, entomologists look to the past
    Plumbing a variety of historical data could offer important insights into trends in insect declines.
    Image credit: Joyce Gross (University of California, Berkeley).
    Scientist looking at an electronic tablet
    Opinion: Standardizing gene product nomenclature—a call to action
    Biomedical communities and journals need to standardize nomenclature of gene products to enhance accuracy in scientific and public communication.
    Image credit: Shutterstock/greenbutterfly.
    White and blue bird
    Hazards of ozone pollution to birds
    Amanda Rodewald, Ivan Rudik, and Catherine Kling talk about the hazards of ozone pollution to birds.
    Listen
    Past PodcastsSubscribe
    Rats
    Protecting against spaceflight-induced muscle and bone loss
    Inhibiting a signaling pathway protects microgravity-exposed mice from losing muscle and bone mass, a study finds.
    Image credit: Se-Jin Lee.

    Similar Articles

    Site Logo
    Powered by HighWire
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • RSS Feeds
    • Email Alerts

    Articles

    • Current Issue
    • Latest Articles
    • Archive

    PNAS Portals

    • Anthropology
    • Chemistry
    • Classics
    • Front Matter
    • Physics
    • Sustainability Science
    • Teaching Resources

    Information

    • Authors
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewers
    • Librarians
    • Press
    • Site Map
    • PNAS Updates

    Feedback    Privacy/Legal

    Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490