@SmallGovtHuman @LindaAshton2 @Jacz_C @baarnold7 @Oftawork @MSMWatchdog2013 @larryjorgensen @DoctorKarl @WAtoday @elliemail @GideonCRozner @ABCscience @andrew__bolt @pm_live are you genuine? Take for example your questioning of consensus or 97-98% literatu
@Leefortheriders @BushwalkingLite @zalisteggall Many times in the past and checked a lot of the credentials. That decade-old canard has been rebutted in many places as FUD. eg https://t.co/HfaN1oZ9qd and 30,000 scientists do not said climate change is a
RT @ScienceVet2: So remember those 3% of climate papers that disagree and say anthropogenic (people caused) warming isn't a thing, and isn'…
RT @timothee_cook: @uk_ecology @kevpluck @Tony__Heller No more debate needed here, unless you provide REAL NEW EVIDENCE. All publishing cli…
RT @timothee_cook: @uk_ecology @kevpluck @Tony__Heller No more debate needed here, unless you provide REAL NEW EVIDENCE. All publishing cli…
@FriendsOScience @ezralevant @Facebook @Poynter @factchecknet @Clintel_NL @ClimateFdbk @caj I think that people and organisations such as @FriendsOScience base their misguided view on flawed studies. Or that they don't understand climate science. But it's
@uk_ecology @kevpluck @Tony__Heller No more debate needed here, unless you provide REAL NEW EVIDENCE. All publishing climate scientists (98%) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change, and the remaining 2% of contrarian studies either cannot be
@Robin_Hagues @Chrisdebois1 @DawnTJ90 Isn't the issue that serious science involves a lot more detail than can fit in a few tweets? Prof Hayhoe has studied, and debunked, the many alternate climate claims, eg here https://t.co/abBiO9wlZ4
@TacTiCOrc @Dsingis @Trigger51166097 @ainyrockstar @_FriedrichMerz Und hier können Sie lesen, warum Paper zu dem Schluss kamen, dass es keinen Klimawandel gäbe. https://t.co/hW8qjqCaAf
@DMRDartford @dana1981 @RogerPielkeJr @RyanMaue In climate science, the problem seems to be the skeptics' papers. This study looked at 38 skeptical papers that failed reproducibility: Benestad &al 2016 https://t.co/p5oaBCH7b9.
@ThiagoMK @prof_mat @stephanevw Nesse artigo, na springer, eles tentaram replicar os resultados dos 3% dos paper que negam aquecimento global, ou por a culpa em causas naturais, ou dizem que nao é problema. Todos tinham erros. https://t.co/aqZr09cMLr
@VilleTavio @HeikkiSairanen ..ja sitten vielä tämä Benestad et al. jossa osoitettiin että niissä ihmisen aiheuttaman ilmastonmuutoksen kiistävissä ~3% tutkimuksista oli käytössä kaikissa vakavia metodologisia puutteita. https://t.co/yqkGwK3Epc
RT @andresospina: @AquAhora1 @elpais_america @Jacobogg @MonicaGIslas Además ese 3% de artículos negando la contundente evidencia del calent…
@AquAhora1 @elpais_america @Jacobogg @MonicaGIslas Además ese 3% de artículos negando la contundente evidencia del calentamiento global antropogénico y sus efectos han sido señalados por su falta de replicabilidad y poca rigurosidad científica. Más informa
@AquAhora1 @colinrivas @elpais_america @Jacobogg @MonicaGIslas ¿Por qué escogéis a científicos que representan una minoría (< 2%) y sus posicionamientos para intentar rebatir un hecho científico reconocido por mas del 98% de todos los científicos? http
@francispouliot_ Yes that’s a real problem. At least it can be identified and mitigated through research though. https://t.co/ajhmu4ss7W Your confirmation bias on the other hand...
@Elodius And What makes you think contrarian theories aren't being considered? 97% of published scientific articles agree. This is a study focusing only on the remainig 2% https://t.co/ZSTCJY8irZ Turns out contrarian studies either cannot be replicated o
RT @MelanieBergma18: @bremenforfuture @sciforfuture empfehlen dringend Weiterbildung, statt Wissenschaft weiter als Fake zu diskreditieren:…
RT @MelanieBergma18: @bremenforfuture @sciforfuture empfehlen dringend Weiterbildung, statt Wissenschaft weiter als Fake zu diskreditieren:…
@bremenforfuture @sciforfuture empfehlen dringend Weiterbildung, statt Wissenschaft weiter als Fake zu diskreditieren: Die 3% der Studien, die menschengemachten #Klimawandel anzweifeln sind fehlerbehaftet. Wenn korrigiert kommen sie zum gleichen Ergebnis w
@GreoryLuckie @Tim_jbo @leo_cadle @JsharkJill @RL4lyfe1 @Panther_809 @MArstonight @simonahac @inmybackyardpls @secretcamera @JohnRuddick2 @cha001 @flexibledragnet A little bit of lite reading for you: https://t.co/q1VPnIbsj9 https://t.co/fPkQnpcPWN
@italianmaster @francispouliot_ You might find this follow up paper interesting. They examine the scientific methodologies of a selection the ~2% of papers rejecting AGW to try to discern why this small number of scientists came up with contrarian results.
How replication of the ca. 3% climate change denial papers undermines their claims. https://t.co/h8ZuNTVGNn
RT @DawnTJ90: But but but.... Peer-reviewed papers! 😳 https://t.co/Q78eKQkhzD
RT @DawnTJ90: But but but.... Peer-reviewed papers! 😳 https://t.co/Q78eKQkhzD
RT @DawnTJ90: But but but.... Peer-reviewed papers! 😳 https://t.co/Q78eKQkhzD
But but but.... Peer-reviewed papers! 😳 https://t.co/Q78eKQkhzD
Here's the original study on the flaws of negating #ClimateChange. https://t.co/vU2xr3dxUj (OA) Tagging @deevybee @briandavidearp @JohnMashey @lteytelman Re #NatAsSchols
RT @ScienceVet2: So remember those 3% of climate papers that disagree and say anthropogenic (people caused) warming isn't a thing, and isn'…
RT @ScienceVet2: So remember those 3% of climate papers that disagree and say anthropogenic (people caused) warming isn't a thing, and isn'…
RT @ScienceVet2: So remember those 3% of climate papers that disagree and say anthropogenic (people caused) warming isn't a thing, and isn'…
@UlrichJuul Undskyld, ikke knap 30 studier, men knap 40. 38 for at være helt præcis. Link til selve studiet: https://t.co/ecqb1JeIHf Link til artikel der forklarer fundene i mere pædagogiske vendinger:https://t.co/SCLyJyr6z2
RT @ScienceVet2: So remember those 3% of climate papers that disagree and say anthropogenic (people caused) warming isn't a thing, and isn'…
RT @ScienceVet2: So remember those 3% of climate papers that disagree and say anthropogenic (people caused) warming isn't a thing, and isn'…
RT @ScienceVet2: So remember those 3% of climate papers that disagree and say anthropogenic (people caused) warming isn't a thing, and isn'…
RT @ScienceVet2: So remember those 3% of climate papers that disagree and say anthropogenic (people caused) warming isn't a thing, and isn'…
RT @ScienceVet2: So remember those 3% of climate papers that disagree and say anthropogenic (people caused) warming isn't a thing, and isn'…
RT @ScienceVet2: So remember those 3% of climate papers that disagree and say anthropogenic (people caused) warming isn't a thing, and isn'…
RT @ScienceVet2: So remember those 3% of climate papers that disagree and say anthropogenic (people caused) warming isn't a thing, and isn'…
RT @ScienceVet2: So remember those 3% of climate papers that disagree and say anthropogenic (people caused) warming isn't a thing, and isn'…
So remember those 3% of climate papers that disagree and say anthropogenic (people caused) warming isn't a thing, and isn't a problem? Well, turns out they're (shockingly) not replicable, and don't even agree with each other. https://t.co/OnxjYYKigy
@RstrixxX @avalancheflake @maxblackhole Sorry, but you're wrong. We have scientific consensus, by any measure. The 3% who have published studies denying climate change has been proven erroneous. They're the equivalent of flat earthers. https://t.co/JhI
RT @LaurelCoons: The 3% Of Scientific Papers That Deny Climate Change: 🌎A study found them all flawed 🌍Researchers tried to replicate the…
RT @LaurelCoons: The 3% Of Scientific Papers That Deny Climate Change: 🌎A study found them all flawed 🌍Researchers tried to replicate the…
RT @LaurelCoons: The 3% Of Scientific Papers That Deny Climate Change: 🌎A study found them all flawed 🌍Researchers tried to replicate the…
RT @LaurelCoons: The 3% Of Scientific Papers That Deny Climate Change: 🌎A study found them all flawed 🌍Researchers tried to replicate the…
RT @LaurelCoons: The 3% Of Scientific Papers That Deny Climate Change: 🌎A study found them all flawed 🌍Researchers tried to replicate the…
RT @LaurelCoons: The 3% Of Scientific Papers That Deny Climate Change: 🌎A study found them all flawed 🌍Researchers tried to replicate the…
RT @LaurelCoons: The 3% Of Scientific Papers That Deny Climate Change: 🌎A study found them all flawed 🌍Researchers tried to replicate the…
RT @LaurelCoons: The 3% Of Scientific Papers That Deny Climate Change: 🌎A study found them all flawed 🌍Researchers tried to replicate the…
RT @LaurelCoons: The 3% Of Scientific Papers That Deny Climate Change: 🌎A study found them all flawed 🌍Researchers tried to replicate the…
RT @LaurelCoons: The 3% Of Scientific Papers That Deny Climate Change: 🌎A study found them all flawed 🌍Researchers tried to replicate the…
RT @LaurelCoons: The 3% Of Scientific Papers That Deny Climate Change: 🌎A study found them all flawed 🌍Researchers tried to replicate the…
RT @LaurelCoons: The 3% Of Scientific Papers That Deny Climate Change: 🌎A study found them all flawed 🌍Researchers tried to replicate the…
RT @LaurelCoons: The 3% Of Scientific Papers That Deny Climate Change: 🌎A study found them all flawed 🌍Researchers tried to replicate the…
RT @LaurelCoons: The 3% Of Scientific Papers That Deny Climate Change: 🌎A study found them all flawed 🌍Researchers tried to replicate the…
RT @LaurelCoons: The 3% Of Scientific Papers That Deny Climate Change: 🌎A study found them all flawed 🌍Researchers tried to replicate the…
RT @LaurelCoons: The 3% Of Scientific Papers That Deny Climate Change: 🌎A study found them all flawed 🌍Researchers tried to replicate the…
@PepeDePablos @dillitale @Cecilia_Lobato_ @DrRamonDeCangas https://t.co/KY46ZwWgU6 Solo un 3% de los estudios niega que sea por causas antropológicas, y se han encontrado errores en ellos :) Aquí dejo un artículo que utiliza un lenguaje menos técnico para
@MattiViljamaa @wieder_fi @JariTahtinen @Keorkios Esimerkkinä ilmastonmuutos: Kysymys, jonka vastaukseen saattaa saatu TIETO (ks.epistemologia) vaikuttaa: “Onko ilmastonmuutos ihmisen aiheuttamaa?” Kysymys, joka koskee MIELIPIDETTÄ, jossa tiedolla ei ole
RT @DIsaac8: New research shows papers that deny climate change commonly suffer from missing contextual info, ignoring information that doe…
Ever wanted to know about the 3% of science that DOESN’T support anthropogenic climate change? "Every single one of those analyses had an error ... that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus."https://t.co/EuDIWRCOP1
@dr_ppetrov @SylviaD32911201 @EcoSenseNow @MichaelEMann This is what happens when you look at the opposing theories: https://t.co/ecqb1JeIHf
@JosephS36875398 Re: "Both sides claim to be the smartest and won't listen to others arguments seriously." Stop making up evidence-free talking points. "Learning from mistakes in climate research" https://t.co/0cE6dIIw9B https://t.co/lr53dn9mYr https://
@justfisk1 @TazorNissen @tan123 @TheDailyShow @ronnychieng While we're at it, here's a paper debunking other anti-climate change papers due to their methods, including inappropriate statistical methods or misunderstood/incomplete physics. https://t.co/6XiM
@0xilight Cette étude : https://t.co/BUc0xWbmCV a également passé en revue les méthodes d'analyse des 2% d'articles qui rejettent l'origine anthropique du réchauffement (réplication et vérification).
@VanessaRiley61 @XRSouthAus @XRebellionAus 97% is old too. Of those 3% of papers doubting it they found them to be full of errors. It’s note like 100% now. Keep up possum. https://t.co/gmFtrEU11w https://t.co/ZVhCcmQtcK
Take 2: https://t.co/gDqqhn4B3K
@IlGiannon @disinformatico @TheAvenger88888 @posthorn21 Qui trovi uno studio che ha provato a replicare parte di quel famoso 3% di studi. Tra questi, tutti hanno problemi metodologici che ne invalidano i risultati. Il 3% è basso, ma comunque una sovrastim
@repblumenauer @AOC @SenSanders actions in order to mitigate this problem. Studies of the contrarian 3% of the research papers (denying human caused climate change) have found that these studies are deeply flawed: https://t.co/tyV2Dpqnk1. Also: https://t.c
@BigDaveTsv @ChadKe_ @simonahac @mikey_perth @ozxilef @zalisteggall It is human nature to be inquisitive. It is inherently scientific to be skeptical. There is also a long history of scientific outliers making significant discoveries, as @NikolovScience
Oops, I broke my own thread. Anyway. I have also yet to see any objective counterargument to the multitude of flaws in the research of the remaining 3% of scientific studies that argue against climate change. https://t.co/x0mdcu31Oz
@rhythm_gore @Horner_Kreisel @SandraPiep @PaulvonHindenb8 Es gibt verschiedenen Konsensstudien. Die bekannteste ist von Cook und besagt, das 97% der Paper (nicht der Wissenschaftler!) zum Klima im Abstrakt erwähnen, dass der Klimawandel menschengemacht ist