Results from analyzing Cook’s (2013) data sets.

In scientific discourse, the prevalence of overwhelming consensus obscures the presence of dissenting views as well as their characteristics. This paper explores the potential to meaningfully measure dissent within the context of such a consensus, using climate change research as a case study. Using citation analysis to explore the dynamics of scientific publications and the reception of dissenting opinions, this project questions whether there may be a methodological framework for quantifying dissent. This study employs analysis of citation networks to assess the visibility and impact of minority viewpoints, as well as the viability of such a study. The findings indicate that because dissent in climate change research is miniscule such measurements are limited. Despite that finding, researchers on the fringe of scientific consensus have an outsized impact on social viewpoints. This project has potential to disrupt the ways researchers critically consider the relevance of dissenting research in their own fields, and to think of ways to embrace the impact of research that expands their fields.