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

Recent posts

Dividing up the World RobVG May 15, 2026 12:56 pm (CurrentEvents)

Foundation RobVG May 15, 2026 11:56 am (Science Fiction)

Przybylski’s Star: Still Bizarre After All These Years ER May 15, 2026 8:09 am (Space/Science)

Starship V3 set to make its first launch 6:30pm ET on Monday, May 19 BuckGalaxy May 12, 2026 4:52 pm (Space/Science)

Good idea, for what it's worth... BuckGalaxy May 11, 2026 11:00 pm (CurrentEvents)

Consequences of the Orange Moron's idiotic war BuckGalaxy May 11, 2026 1:36 am (CurrentEvents)

How are you supposed to win a war when you avoid killing people RobVG May 8, 2026 5:47 pm (CurrentEvents)

There's no way the Post WW2 order can be revived after Trump BuckGalaxy April 30, 2026 5:26 pm (CurrentEvents)

Trump had to be stopped from using nuclear weapons on Iran (edit - no evidence for claim... BAD RL!) RL April 21, 2026 7:57 pm (CurrentEvents)

New Glenn 3 flight profile BuckGalaxy April 18, 2026 12:08 am (Space/Science)

NASA's Moon Base User’s Guide BuckGalaxy April 16, 2026 3:10 pm (Space/Science)

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