• Space/Science
  • GeekSpeak
  • Mysteries of
    the Multiverse
  • Science Fiction
  • The Comestible Zone
  • Off-Topic
  • Community
  • Flame
  • CurrentEvents

Recent posts

Blu-Ray ER March 15, 2026 11:27 am (Off-Topic)

Trump Administration Readies Plans to Dismantle Renowned Science Lab BuckGalaxy March 13, 2026 11:46 pm (Space/Science)

The Republic RobVG March 11, 2026 11:40 am (Off-Topic)

The Great Lie of War BuckGalaxy March 5, 2026 9:23 am (CurrentEvents)

Overheard on the internet... ER March 4, 2026 4:37 pm (CurrentEvents)

I hate waking up to war podrock February 28, 2026 11:04 am (CurrentEvents)

The religion of nonreligion can be like nonalcohol beer: What’s the point? BuckGalaxy February 28, 2026 2:25 am (Off-Topic)

MAGAlomania unleashed again BuckGalaxy February 28, 2026 2:21 am (CurrentEvents)

‘We’re Going to the Moon and Mars’ BuckGalaxy February 26, 2026 8:41 pm (Space/Science)

Is This the Most Important Supreme Court Case of the Century? BuckGalaxy February 22, 2026 8:56 pm (CurrentEvents)

Supreme Court tries to do Trump a favor BuckGalaxy February 20, 2026 10:58 am (CurrentEvents)

Role reversal ER February 20, 2026 7:58 am (Off-Topic)

Home » Space/Science

Ooops, climate change "skeptics" lose another talking point... September 6, 2017 6:15 pm RL

The 3% solution…
Its almost like the science isnt on their side!

It’s often said that of all the published scientific research on climate change, 97% of the papers conclude that global warming is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity.
But what about those 3% of papers that reach contrary conclusions? Some skeptics have suggested that the authors of studies indicating that climate change is not real, not harmful, or not man-made are bravely standing up for the truth, like maverick thinkers of the past. (Galileo is often invoked, though his fellow scientists mostly agreed with his conclusions—it was church leaders who tried to suppress them.)
Not so, according to a review published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology. The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results.
Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming.
“Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,” Hayhoe wrote in a Facebook post.

The Paper

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

  • But fact-checking is fake news! by Robert 2017-09-06 18:58:40
    • Don't dignify denialism as delirium. by hank 2017-09-06 20:16:47

    Search

    The Control Panel

    • Log in
    • Register