What did anderegg do
Executive summary
The answer depends on which Anderegg is meant: William R. L. Anderegg is the lead author of a widely cited 2010 PNAS paper on climate‑science expertise and consensus, a paper that has drawn methodological criticism (treating publication metrics as a proxy for expertise) in subsequent commentary [1] [2]. Separately, Steven Anderegg was the defendant in a federal criminal matter alleging he used text‑to‑image AI to create and share sexually explicit images of minors and engaged in sexual communications with youths; court records and local reporting describe search warrants, AI‑generated images, and related charges but do not in these sources show a conviction [3] [4].
1. William R. L. Anderegg: quantified the climate‑expert consensus and invited critique
In 2010 William R. L. Anderegg co‑authored “Expert credibility in climate change,” a PNAS paper that analyzed publication records to estimate levels of agreement among active climate researchers and concluded a high degree of consensus; that paper is catalogued in PubMed/PNAS and cited across science communication outlets [1] [5]. The methodology—using publication metrics and prominence as proxies for expertise—became a focal point for critics who argued that publication counts can misrepresent domain expertise and that minority viewpoints might be underweighted, a critique summarized in commentaries and letters responding to the PNAS piece [2] [6]. The paper and its defenders have been repeatedly cited in debates over the “97%” consensus framing of anthropogenic climate change, and the scholarly record shows ongoing discussion about how best to measure expert agreement [5] [7].
2. The methodological row: what the critics said and why it matters
Commentators challenged Anderegg et al. for equating publication metrics with core expertise and for potentially biasing results toward the majority view, arguing that career‑long specialization and the content quality of work matter beyond raw counts [2] [1]. Those critiques highlight an implicit agenda in consensus studies—how design choices can affect public messaging about scientific certainty—and they have fueled broader discourse about classroom framing and public communication of climate science, where organizations reference the paper when asserting high levels of scientific agreement [8] [6].
3. Steven Anderegg: criminal allegations involving generative AI and minors
Court documents summarized in a public Wikisource opinion and local reporting describe a federal investigation into Steven Anderegg of Holmen, Wisconsin, that found Instagram accounts containing apparently AI‑generated images of naked boys and sexually explicit chats with minors, prompting search warrants for his home and vehicles and federal charges; reporting states the images were produced with Stable Diffusion and that prosecutors did not charge traditional child‑pornography counts because the images were not of real children [3]. Local news reporting says he allegedly used text‑to‑image generative AI to create thousands of sexually explicit images of prepubescent minors and shared some with a 15‑year‑old via Instagram, and that he faced state charges including a count of first‑degree child sexual assault alongside federal detention [4].
4. Legal posture and limits of the record
The court opinion records law‑enforcement steps—administrative subpoena to an ISP linking Instagram activity to an IP address, warrants based on the account content, and denial of suppression motions because the warrant affidavits allegedly established probable cause for obscenity offenses—but the material provided does not assert final convictions or sentencing in the federal docket excerpts available here [3] [9]. Reporting and the opinion make clear how prosecutors and judges are navigating novel questions about AI‑generated sexual imagery and federal obscenity statutes, but these sources do not supply complete adjudicative outcomes or plea details [3] [4].
5. Other Andereggs and public roles
The name Anderegg also appears in other public contexts: a Brandon Anderegg authors posts on a law firm blog about evidentiary rules (Anderegg & Associates) that are legal‑technical and unrelated to the PNAS paper or the criminal matter [10], and Jake Anderegg — a Utah state legislator who resigned in 2023 — has a distinct public record on education oversight and legislative committee work [11] [12]. Conflation among these figures can create confusion in public reporting, so distinguishing by given name and domain is essential [10] [12].