On June 27, ScienceDaily reported on a new study published in the online Early Edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences led by Stanford researchers showing that "[t]he small number of scientists who are unconvinced that human beings have contributed significantly to climate change have far less expertise and prominence in climate research compared with scientists who are convinced."

ScienceDaily quoted study co-author William Anderegg as saying: “We really wanted to bring the expertise dimension into this whole discussion. ... We hope to put to rest the notion that keeps being repeated in the media and by some members of the public that 'the scientists disagree' about whether human activity is contributing to climate change.” Anderegg's co-author Stephen Schneider added: “It is sad that we even have to do this. .... [Too much of] the media world has just folded up and fired its reporters with expertise in science.”

From ScienceDaily:

“These are standard academic metrics used when universities are making hiring or tenure decisions,” said William Anderegg, lead author of a paper published in the online Early Edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this week.

Expertise was evaluated by the number of papers on climate research written by each individual, with a minimum of 20 required to be included in the analysis. Climate researchers who are convinced of human-caused climate change had on average about twice as many publications as the unconvinced, said Anderegg, a doctoral candidate in biology.

[...]

The Stanford team also determined the top 100 climate researchers, based on the total number of climate related publications each had, which produced an even more telling result, Anderegg said.

“When you look at the leading scientists who have made any sort of statement about anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change, you find 97 percent of those top 100 surveyed scientists explicitly agreeing with or endorsing the IPCC's assessment,” he said. That result has been borne out by several other published studies that used different methodology, as well as some that are due out later this summer, he said.

“We really wanted to bring the expertise dimension into this whole discussion,” Anderegg said. “We hope to put to rest the notion that keeps being repeated in the media and by some members of the public that 'the scientists disagree' about whether human activity is contributing to climate change.”

“I never object to quoting opinions that are 'way out.' I think there is nothing wrong with that,” said Stephen Schneider, professor of biology and a coauthor of the paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “But if the media doesn't report that something is a 'way out' opinion relative to the mainstream, then how is the average person going to know the relative credibility of what is being said?”

“It is sad that we even have to do this,” said Schneider. "[Too much of] the media world has just folded up and fired its reporters with expertise in science."