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…
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…
Who is asininely claiming climate is flat lined: the empirical alternative to changing? Get impression some think can be flat lined re temp and atmospheric gas mixtures: asinine. Planetary cyclical systems as tides, climate, plate tectonics are observab
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…
The 3% Of Scientific Papers That Deny Climate Change: 🌎A study found them all flawed 🌍Researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers (a common way to test scientific studies) and found biased, faulty results #CheckYourWork #Rstats 👉ht
People often cling to the statistic "97% of scientists" believe in anthropogenic climate change. This report finds that papers in the 3% that disagree are flawed. This is just one of the many reasons why research quality is so important! https://t.co/E4K
@L_Berthod @GeWoessner @jmvittori @LesEchos Tout simplement parce que leurs publications sont erronées, mon petit : https://t.co/yqRUtp2AI3.
RT @DocRichard: Important analysis of the handful of peer-reviewed papers that are sceptical of AGW find errors. https://t.co/8sdPpeLKgj
Important analysis of the handful of peer-reviewed papers that are sceptical of AGW find errors.
RT @CJPomfret: @StrikeClimate @TonyAbbottMHR This is really great. Someone needs to get the message to this young woman that it’s more than…
@StrikeClimate @TonyAbbottMHR This is really great. Someone needs to get the message to this young woman that it’s more than 97% of scientists though. Of the 3% they checked them & found they had made errors or were fundamentally wrong. So we can say t
@dperetti @SciTania @astropierre Dans les 38 publications sur lesquelles se bases les climatosceptiques, les données sont erronées ou utilisées de manière non scientifique (https://t.co/dP1nxXkF5E). À l'inverse, de très vieux papiers sur le réchauffement d
@late2game @dougsamu Yes, the 3% are likely bunkum. But all were not reviewed. Focus of the study, about 4-yrs-old, was on a small sample of papers, selectively picked rather than randomly sampled. This raised the issue of imperfect sampling. A problem the
For those who want the data, here's the paper behind the article: https://t.co/liUDLGBaH9 https://t.co/UlVqoIi528
RT @BrownPeteW: @GeraldKutney @MichaelEMann @TomTolesToons That and maybe understanding that the 3% of scientific papers promoting climate…
Worth reading. https://t.co/Bx9ybRsT1R
In #climatechange studies, #science is never settled. Good science must be #objective —it doesn’t care what anyone wants the answers to be. #replicable #results https://t.co/z0Xo9oGRsV
RT @ProfAlisonK: Here's the paper: https://t.co/KvNxc536Ed
Here's the paper: https://t.co/KvNxc536Ed
RT @CriticalStress_: Anthropogenic climate change is a testable theory that is observed directly. Every argument against it has been found…
@KinkerMichards @ggjvo @RichardEdinger @GWrightstone The data above accounts for all that. There has been a 4-fold increase in the rate of SLR in the last decades. So, another tick for AGW theory. After all, it’s already been shown that basically all pape
RT @Pachecovv: Esta investigación del 2015 encontró que el 3% de las publicaciones que diferían con el otro 97% sobre las actividades human…
RT @Pachecovv: Esta investigación del 2015 encontró que el 3% de las publicaciones que diferían con el otro 97% sobre las actividades human…
RT @Pachecovv: Esta investigación del 2015 encontró que el 3% de las publicaciones que diferían con el otro 97% sobre las actividades human…
Esta investigación del 2015 encontró que el 3% de las publicaciones que diferían con el otro 97% sobre las actividades humanas como causantes del cambio climático tenían errores en sus métodos y conclusiones que, una vez corregidos, se unían al consenso.
@geoffsmithsmind @DavidMo66984563 @USATODAY @NOAA Re: "That’s science." No, that's Tsonis saying nonsense again in an remote journal, after he made failed predictions. "published in journals whose target topics were remote from climate research" https://
RT @FranceArctique: D’après le GIEC, 3% des études sur le #climat réfutent l’idée d’un réchauffement climatique causé par l’activité humain…
RT @FranceArctique: D’après le GIEC, 3% des études sur le #climat réfutent l’idée d’un réchauffement climatique causé par l’activité humain…
Absolument fascinant: comment on fabrique scientifiquement de fausses vérités. Un article à lire et faire lire pour comprendre combien de fausses vérités peuvent se cacher derrière un vernis scientifique
RT @BrunoTertrais: C’est un peu plus compliqué. La méthodologie de la fameuse étude qui proposait les 97% était elle même discutable. https…
C’est un peu plus compliqué. La méthodologie de la fameuse étude qui proposait les 97% était elle même discutable.
RT @FranceArctique: D’après le GIEC, 3% des études sur le #climat réfutent l’idée d’un réchauffement climatique causé par l’activité humain…
RT @FranceArctique: D’après le GIEC, 3% des études sur le #climat réfutent l’idée d’un réchauffement climatique causé par l’activité humain…
RT @FranceArctique: D’après le GIEC, 3% des études sur le #climat réfutent l’idée d’un réchauffement climatique causé par l’activité humain…
D’après le GIEC, 3% des études sur le #climat réfutent l’idée d’un réchauffement climatique causé par l’activité humaine. Une étude a analysé ces papiers "climatosceptiques". Elle montre que TOUS comportent au moins une erreur méthodo ou analytique. 😏👎 ht
RT @o_weverton: Referências (de acordo com a ABNT - Associação Brasileira de Normas do Twitter) (1) https://t.co/dfwE7WIngN (2) https://t.c…
Original article: Learning from mistakes in climate research https://t.co/5oESCoEyKD
RT @jiimiettinen: Mitä paljastui ilmastonmuutoksen kyseenalaistavista tutkimuspapereista, kun kävivät läpi ne kunnolla? Kuulemma läjäpäin…
RT @jiimiettinen: Mitä paljastui ilmastonmuutoksen kyseenalaistavista tutkimuspapereista, kun kävivät läpi ne kunnolla? Kuulemma läjäpäin…
N O olipa yllätys.
RT @jiimiettinen: Mitä paljastui ilmastonmuutoksen kyseenalaistavista tutkimuspapereista, kun kävivät läpi ne kunnolla? Kuulemma läjäpäin…
RT @jiimiettinen: Mitä paljastui ilmastonmuutoksen kyseenalaistavista tutkimuspapereista, kun kävivät läpi ne kunnolla? Kuulemma läjäpäin…
RT @jiimiettinen: Mitä paljastui ilmastonmuutoksen kyseenalaistavista tutkimuspapereista, kun kävivät läpi ne kunnolla? Kuulemma läjäpäin…
Mitä paljastui ilmastonmuutoksen kyseenalaistavista tutkimuspapereista, kun kävivät läpi ne kunnolla? Kuulemma läjäpäin virheitä. https://t.co/k7PsaZgdhm
RT @climatefactaday: Of the 2-3% of #climatechange studies that deny human-caused climate change, the vast majority are flawed when replica…
@PiuDoveri @climatemon Però è stato facile per te fare l'offeso ed evitare di discutere, proprio quando ti ho linkato una lunga lista di studi. Ma è ancora meglio proporti dei paper review: https://t.co/0yd7zHJ0Aq https://t.co/tbxwpXneh6
@Juha_the_Great @TeemuVKarjalain @SarasvuoJari @loukomies Kiitos artikkelilinkeistä. Mielelläni tutustuisin myös muihin vastaaviin artikkeleihin. Asian kompleksisuudesta samaa mieltä. Joku olikin jo tehnyt sen mitä pohdin: https://t.co/G62HYlky0g Toivomu
@edoardo_riccio @undertour @LauraPuppato @vfeltri Esatto, lo "so" perché ci sono pubblicazioni che lo dimostrano: https://t.co/0yd7zHJ0Aq https://t.co/tbxwpXneh6 Invece su cosa si basano le tue opinioni?
@vidri @StuartStark @Michael46830937 @CJ_Toronto @cathmckenna Except, they don't. An attempt to recreate skeptical studies found flaws in every one. Every. Single. One. https://t.co/V2yunuNBzr
@ItsBouquet @thempiricalkid @JaneCaro The original paper from which this was assuredly (and poorly) plagiarized https://t.co/09SZfaJq1Q read "2%." And, lest you think this bolsters any claim to the contrary, woman-made climate change is still un-vetted non
RT @MartaOlazabal: El 97% de los estudios cientificos sobre el #cambioclimático esta de acuerdo con la causa antropogénica, ¿Y el 3% restan…
RT @DrTomasS: @AnibalVelarde @BernieSanders These links may be of interest: 97 % - https://t.co/mxPvijTknn (list of studies @NASA - https:/…
@AnibalVelarde @BernieSanders These links may be of interest: 97 % - https://t.co/mxPvijTknn (list of studies @NASA - https://t.co/2B9Dx8ycQO, inc. @johnfocook's https://t.co/jMWOdj4eBi) 3 % - https://t.co/QB28p8tW2L (or orginal litereative - https://t.co/
RT @climatefactaday: Of the 2-3% of #climatechange studies that deny human-caused climate change, the vast majority are flawed when replica…
RT @climatefactaday: Of the 2-3% of #climatechange studies that deny human-caused climate change, the vast majority are flawed when replica…
Of the 2-3% of #climatechange studies that deny human-caused climate change, the vast majority are flawed when replicated -- they cherry pick information / use insufficient models & inappropriate statistical methods. #scientificmethod #consensus #gali
El 97% de los estudios cientificos sobre el #cambioclimático esta de acuerdo con la causa antropogénica, ¿Y el 3% restante? Un estudio (2016) los analizó https://t.co/hVXv06nWF2 y detectó errores. Si se corrigen, se puede argumentar que el 100% de los estu
Very interesting on multiple levels: "Learning from mistakes in climate science" https://t.co/0e2mRtja1L Applies to climate denial, but good to watch out for similar flaws in science broadly (esp. my own).
@WrittenOnWater @andrew_civil @simonahac @SkyNewsAust @rowandean Ha you can’t even get the percentage right. You should stay silent and leave it to others. https://t.co/ZVhCcmQtcK
@stephanos3867 @AlanRMJones @JohnRuddick2 @TurnbullMalcolm @BevanShields Another BS article from 2015. You are seriously mislead & not well read. The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust: https://t.co/RLyzUmlFrk But the 97% claim is ac
@irEnriqueCortes @Infocadl2015 @groenlinks @nosnieuws @RTLnieuws @EWdeVlieger @djeppink @thierrybaudet @torfsrik @Bart_DeWever @dijkhoff @RutgervdNoort @JoostNiemoller Het wetenschappelijke bewijs voor de door de mens veroorzaakte #klimaatverandering is nu
@DawnTJ90 @CO2isLife @Tangomitteckel @tan123 I don’t believe there is any widespread problem. There definitely was some shoddy work that got published on the “skeptic” side though ... https://t.co/O7TRS8wy35
@PoliticalKathy Here's a review in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology in 2015. The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers and found faulty results. https://t.co/G1gQ12YsB9
@WEschenbach @scottpwaldman @RyanMaue A few misleading papers ... and the exact reasons they are flawed ... https://t.co/O7TRS8wy35
@HomerFrom @JohnRuddick2 @chriskkenny You can deny all you like but that does not change the facts that are continually emerging that human driven climate change is real. It is very close to 100% of scientist show this & the others are being debunked.
RT @frkmgnt1: @chrislhayes Because obviously both sides — the 97% of global scientists, & the handful of corporate sponsored studies, that,…
@chrislhayes Because obviously both sides — the 97% of global scientists, & the handful of corporate sponsored studies, that, upon peer review, were found to be flawed. #ClimateChangeIsReal There’s no debate. We need to stop legitimizing these liars #