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

Recent posts

Trouble on the way BuckGalaxy January 28, 2026 1:47 pm (CurrentEvents)

Being a tech bro gets you a commission and a uniform podrock January 28, 2026 11:16 am (CurrentEvents)

Artificial Intelligence ER January 28, 2026 6:56 am (Flame)

Emily Blunt's favorite sandwich. ER January 27, 2026 7:46 am (Comestible Zone)

hey hey SDG January 26, 2026 10:38 pm (6)

‘Yes, it’s going to crack’ - a spacecraft not everyone thinks is safe to fly BuckGalaxy January 23, 2026 10:42 am (Flame)

Trump’s Greenland Gambit Has Broken Brains Across Washington BuckGalaxy January 21, 2026 8:38 pm (Flame)

This is so strange, on so many levels. ER January 21, 2026 5:13 pm (Off-Topic)

What's in your wallet? ER January 19, 2026 8:10 pm (CurrentEvents)

Anne Applebaum: Trump’s Letter to Norway Should Be the Last Straw BuckGalaxy January 19, 2026 7:18 pm (Flame)

Sloppy Seconds BuckGalaxy January 16, 2026 7:24 pm (Flame)

Trump's irrational fixation on Greenland could lead to widespread conflict. BuckGalaxy January 14, 2026 10:48 pm (Flame)

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