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

Recent posts

A Taste of Armageddon RobVG July 2, 2025 8:00 am (CurrentEvents)

We've got company ER July 2, 2025 7:50 am (Space/Science)

All Along the Watchtower ER July 1, 2025 9:13 pm (CurrentEvents)

Birthright Citizenship RobVG June 29, 2025 3:34 pm (CurrentEvents)

To be blunt, NASA is now dead RL June 27, 2025 11:56 am (Space/Science)

Musk trashes his own AI after it chose a liberal worldview. RobVG June 23, 2025 9:56 am (CurrentEvents)

Psyche keeps its date with an asteroid BuckGalaxy June 22, 2025 5:21 pm (Space/Science)

Just for the record... ER June 22, 2025 8:59 am (CurrentEvents)

The Three Unknowns After the U.S. Strike on Iran BuckGalaxy June 22, 2025 12:58 am (CurrentEvents)

There are only nine meals between mankind and anarchy. BuckGalaxy June 22, 2025 12:29 am (Flame)

Not ready for prime time BuckGalaxy June 19, 2025 12:18 pm (Space/Science)

hypocrisy ER June 15, 2025 2:30 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