Recalculating climate change consensus: The question of position and rhetoric

Abstract Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic climate change and its communication have become a controversial research subject in recent years. This paper utilized a reference list from a climate skeptic report and a previously published quantitative method of consensus research to revisit the theoretical and methodological questions. Beyond rating the abstracts according to their position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), this study classified the strategic in-text functions of the references. Results not only showed the biased character of the literature set, but also revealed a remarkable AGW endorsement level among journal articles that took a position concerning AGW. However, this paper does not argue for modified consensus numbers, but instead emphasizes the role of ‘no position’ abstracts and the role of rhetoric. Our quantitative results provided evidence that abstract rating is a suboptimal way to measure consensus. Rhetoric is far more important than it appears at first glance. It is important at the level of scientists, who prefer neutral language, and at the level of readers such as report editors, who encounter and re-interpret the texts. Hence, disagreement appears to stem from the disparate understanding and rhetorically supported interpretation of the research results. Neutral abstracts and papers seem to provide more room for interpretation.