As per research headed by Stanford researchers Researchers who doubt that humans have contributed much to climate change have far less proficiency and prominence in climate research as compared to researchers who are convinced.

In a quantitative assessment, the team examined the number of research papers released by over 900 climate researchers and the number of times their work was cited by other scientists.

William Anderegg, lead author of a paper, stated, "These are standard academic metrics used when universities are making hiring or tenure decisions."

Expertise was assessed by the number of papers on climate research penned by each individual, with a minimum of 20 required to be included in the analysis.

Anderegg stated that climate researchers who are convinced of human-caused climate alteration had on average about twice as many publications as the unconvinced.

Prominence was evaluated by taking the four most frequently cited papers released in any field by each researcher - not just climate science publications - and tallying the number of times those papers were cited by other researchers.

Papers by climate scientists positive of human effects were cited about 64 percent more often than papers by the unconvinced.

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.

The Stanford group is prepared for the doubters of anthropogenic climate change to object to their data.

The study is issued in the online Early Edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. (With Inputs from Agencies)