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

Recent posts

Latinexus DEE-Fense ER February 9, 2026 6:48 pm (CurrentEvents)

Did we detect an exploding primordial black hole? RL February 7, 2026 5:29 pm (Space/Science)

Is anybody paying attention? ER February 6, 2026 4:47 pm (CurrentEvents)

Did you think there was a limit to Trump's narcissism? BuckGalaxy February 6, 2026 1:33 am (CurrentEvents)

A funny (?) interaction with chatgpt RL February 4, 2026 9:05 pm (Space/Science)

Trump Has Overwhelmed Himself BuckGalaxy February 4, 2026 3:53 pm (Flame)

FALLOUT on Amazon Prime BuckGalaxy February 3, 2026 9:33 pm (Science Fiction)

Blue Origin halts New Shepard flights BuckGalaxy January 31, 2026 3:13 am (Space/Science)

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)

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