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

Recent posts

Clearly threatening language BuckGalaxy May 16, 2025 3:43 pm (Flame)

Most common planet type in the Galaxy BuckGalaxy May 16, 2025 1:51 pm (Space/Science)

Large Loathsome Legislation fails in committee BuckGalaxy May 16, 2025 1:14 pm (CurrentEvents)

Large Hadron Collider Eureka! BuckGalaxy May 15, 2025 11:44 am (Space/Science)

Plan(et) 9 from Outer Space BuckGalaxy May 13, 2025 10:58 am (Space/Science)

Shouldn't there be an Afrikaaner-American studies department in our universities? ER May 12, 2025 2:59 pm (CurrentEvents)

The April numbers ER May 8, 2025 5:59 am (Space/Science)

The Orange Criminal POS abandons another ally BuckGalaxy May 7, 2025 10:18 am (CurrentEvents)

Orion spacecraft for crewed Artemis II lunar mission ready BuckGalaxy May 3, 2025 8:13 pm (Space/Science)

Australia election more bad news conservatives BuckGalaxy May 3, 2025 11:54 am (CurrentEvents)

Massive cuts to NASA budget proposed BuckGalaxy May 3, 2025 9:19 am (Space/Science)

Say what? ER May 1, 2025 8:53 pm (CurrentEvents)

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