The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Expert credibility in climate change
Open accessAbstract
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 surveyed here 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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Oreskes, N. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1103618 · Cited by 1,814
A widening gap: republican and democratic views on climate change.
Dunlap, R. E., & McCright, A. M. (2008) · Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development · doi:10.3200/envt.50.5.26-35 · Cited by 780
Climate of scepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change
Antilla, L. (2005) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.08.003 · Cited by 511
MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1996) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02129604 · Cited by 503
A macro study of self-citation
Aksnes, D. W. (2003) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1023/a:1021919228368 · Cited by 357
Cited by
Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100612451018 · Cited by 2,920
Direct Capture of CO2 from Ambient Air
Sanz-Pérez, E. S., Murdock, C. R., Didas, S. A., & Jones, C. W. (2016) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00173 · Cited by 2,406
Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era.
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Cook, J. (2017) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008 · Cited by 1,985
Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change
van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S., & Maibach, E. (2017) · Global Challenges · doi:10.1002/gch2.201600008 · Cited by 1,058
Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S., & Ecker, U. K. H. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0175799 · Cited by 971
Metadata
- Authors
- Anderegg, W. R. L., Prall, J. W., Harold, J., & Schneider, S. H.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2010-06-21
- Volume
- 107
- Issue
- 27
- Pages
- 12107-12109
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2013974666
- Cited by
- 813
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 174.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Expert credibility in climate change. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1003187107
- The paper
- Anderegg, W. R. L., Prall, J. W., Harold, J., & Schneider, S. H. (2010). Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1003187107
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.