How many climate scientists reject human-caused global warming as of 2025?
Executive summary
Available reporting shows overwhelming agreement among climate scientists that recent warming is driven mainly by human greenhouse-gas emissions; major syntheses state it is “unequivocal” and U.S. and international science bodies affirm human influence [1]. Specific counts of how many individual climate scientists “reject” human-caused global warming in 2025 are not provided in these sources; studies cited historically find very few dissenting authors among thousands of papers, but current numerical totals are not listed in the available reporting [2] [3].
1. Consensus in plain sight: major bodies say human influence is unequivocal
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that “It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land,” a position affirmed by recent national science reviews including the U.S. National Academies and other agencies referenced in reporting [1]. NOAA’s explanatory materials likewise say a large majority of climate scientists agree that today’s warming is warmer than pre‑industrial times and that human activity is the primary factor [3].
2. What peer‑review studies have shown about dissenters
Longstanding literature reviews and surveys of the peer‑reviewed record have repeatedly found that explicit rejection of anthropogenic global warming among authors is vanishingly rare: one review of thousands of abstracts found only one paper that rejected anthropogenic global warming in a certain sample, and surveys show high agreement especially among specialists with substantial publication records [2]. These historic analyses establish the scale of consensus, but they do not provide a headcount of rejecting scientists in 2025 [2].
3. Contrarian pockets exist and receive amplification
Reporting highlights that a small number of credentialed scientists and certain government reports promote contrarian views—arguing larger roles for natural variability or critiquing attribution and model projections—which are described as “out of step with the mainstream” by scientists and outlets such as Science/AAAS [4]. These contrarian voices can be amplified by political actors and agencies, which complicates public impressions of how widespread scientific rejection is [4].
4. Political and institutional dynamics matter for perception
Sources document political efforts to cast doubt or roll back regulatory foundations—examples include reported moves to rescind regulatory findings and high‑profile political rhetoric—that can create the impression of broader scientific disagreement than research supports [5] [6]. The media and political framings therefore should be read alongside the scientific assessments to understand why public perception can diverge from expert consensus [5].
5. Recent activist mobilization underscores majority view, not a split
Hundreds of scientists signing urgent declarations and statements in late 2025 underline the activist and expert majority calling for rapid emissions cuts; these actions reflect collective alarm among mainstream researchers rather than evidence of a deep scientific split [7]. Such mobilizations are consistent with the IPCC and national academy conclusions about human causation and the need for policy response [1] [7].
6. Counting dissenters: what the sources do and do not provide
Available sources report on the scale and strength of the consensus and describe isolated contrarian groups, but they do not supply a contemporary, authoritative count of scientists who reject human‑caused warming as of 2025. Historical analyses report “only one” rejecting paper in particular samples and high agreement percentages among experienced researchers, but these are not equivalent to a global headcount of dissenting scientists in 2025 [2] [3].
7. How to evaluate claims about “how many”
Claims that purport to enumerate dissenters should be checked against methodology: whether they count signatories, authors of papers, surveyed individuals, or self‑identified scientists; whether they require climate‑science expertise; and whether the timeframe is current. Science reporting and institutional assessments remain the most reliable guides to the extent and substance of disagreement [2] [1].
Limitations: these conclusions rely only on the provided reporting and summaries; specific, up‑to‑date tallies of individual scientists who reject anthropogenic climate change are not reported in these sources, so a precise 2025 count cannot be stated here [2] [3].