@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 #
@martinpoulsen @kjellerupbiz @CEPOS "I"? Personligt ser jeg på alle de alternative teorier, jeg finder. Problemet er, at de færreste er peer-reviewed, og de som er, har som regel klare (data)mangler og står alene med deres alternative forklaring. Se fx det
@Henning_1969 3: Jeg har forøvrig vært med å testet en del teorier som prøver å forklare uten menneskelige faktorer sammen blant annet @RasmusBenestad https://t.co/Q23qZW07CF
@Ericson_ubbhult @ViktorBanke @wennefors Jag är övertygad om att du inte vill ha fakta, men ändå... https://t.co/GHukSLohoX
RT @CJPomfret: @Dan89564448 @CFMarriage @LyleShelton Dan you really shouldn’t spread this around when it’s easily debunked. ... 97% consen…
@Dan89564448 @CFMarriage @LyleShelton Dan you really shouldn’t spread this around when it’s easily debunked. ... 97% consensus result is robust https://t.co/RLyzUmlFrk But what about the 3%? https://t.co/ZVhCcmQtcK . Turns out it’s much more like 100% of
@jaci_wiley @LyleShelton More like 100% of Scientists https://t.co/ZVhCcmQtcK
@Youcantbeserio6 @GreenJ That is absolute BS. The real science not pseudo science shows any papers that found man made climate change was not happening had errors. Once corrected the found it is happening. https://t.co/ZVhCcmQtcK
RT @JFritzjames: when science shows (via replication) that climate change denial is wrong... #climatechange #ClimateAction https://t.co/Z…
@browndogstales @boogiefever1985 @chriskkenny Way higher than 3%. More like 100% of Climate Scientists agree when the 3% against papers were checked for errors., https://t.co/ZVhCcmQtcK
RT @o_weverton: Referências (de acordo com a ABNT - Associação Brasileira de Normas do Twitter) (1) https://t.co/dfwE7WIngN (2) https://t.c…
RT @o_weverton: Referências (de acordo com a ABNT - Associação Brasileira de Normas do Twitter) (1) https://t.co/dfwE7WIngN (2) https://t.c…
@BiripiWanderer @Stay_young4now @EnviroVic @wendymather11 @PaulineHansonOz Not a generalisation at all: The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust https://t.co/RLyzUmlFrk 100% of Scientists agree https://t.co/ZVhCcmQtcK
RT @o_weverton: Referências (de acordo com a ABNT - Associação Brasileira de Normas do Twitter) (1) https://t.co/dfwE7WIngN (2) https://t.c…
RT @o_weverton: Referências (de acordo com a ABNT - Associação Brasileira de Normas do Twitter) (1) https://t.co/dfwE7WIngN (2) https://t.c…
RT @o_weverton: Referências (de acordo com a ABNT - Associação Brasileira de Normas do Twitter) (1) https://t.co/dfwE7WIngN (2) https://t.c…
@threedogsonekid @australian @Peter_Fitz @wendy_harmer @simonahac @GuardianAus @abcnews Furthermore the 3% of papers when checked by peer review have been found to contain errors that once fixed all conclude man made climate change is happening. https://t
@Justinslucaj Before you bang on about the 3% who disagree. It seems that once their work was audited by peer review mistakes were found in their research. So 100% of Scientists agree. https://t.co/ZVhCcmQtcK
@Justinslucaj That’s more BS from you. Here read this before you carry on with more ‘there is doubt on the consensus’ garbage... https://t.co/ZVhCcmQtcK
@deangilmour1 @Peter_Fitz That is not the debate with the experts. The deniers are trying to claim that as the debate but there is no debate. None. The experts all conclude the same answer. Your graph is BS. Your argument is BS. Your ethics are also BS. ht
@DBrown38872320 More rubbish from you. Here is why it’s more than 97% who agree climate change is happening. https://t.co/ZVhCcmQtcK
@KlausErmecke @rahmstorf Text ist wissenschaftlich nicht relevant. WENN Tscheuschner zitiert wird, dann zum Thema "Learning from mistakes in climate research" wie hier: https://t.co/HSqlzaWC2l Interessant wo die Arbeit überall zitiert wird, aber Ihnen wir
RT @klimaatVeranda: @RikHJHarmsen @WviEI @lbergkamp En als je na heel goed zoeken een paar wetenschappelijke publicaties vindt die inderdaa…
@RikHJHarmsen @WviEI @lbergkamp En als je na heel goed zoeken een paar wetenschappelijke publicaties vindt die inderdaad in tegenspraak zijn met de mainstream klimaatwetenschap, dan is de kans groot dat er flinke fouten in zitten: https://t.co/GQpPgdvf8P -
@kakketoe @BoudewijnC @BastiaanFff @drs_vincent @rolf_bruijn @aliettejonkers @anthonyboerma @TinusPulles @FrankBrecht @GerritHiemstra @klimaatVeranda @Infocadl2015 Neem dan ook meteen even kennis van dit onderzoek: https://t.co/3xneaSl5CX De rapporten die
@climatedogs @SimonCorbell Wonder what happened to the 3% who supposedly are left challenging the science? Turns out peer reviews went back and corrected their work and found all 3% to be wrong. So 100% of climate Scientists agree. https://t.co/ZVhCcmQtcK
RT @o_weverton: Referências (de acordo com a ABNT - Associação Brasileira de Normas do Twitter) (1) https://t.co/dfwE7WIngN (2) https://t.c…
@DepAussie @LouHou @LyleShelton @SebTuckerAU Bullshi$! You have no eveidence that can withstand the peer review of climate scientists. None! I challenge you to. You won’t & can’t. https://t.co/ZVhCcmQtcK
@olrailbird @JosephJ84281313 @SteveSGoddard @JuPe_EU @tan123 Steven where did we say settled? However, with 99% of climate scientists now concluding there is human driven climate change that’s good enough for me. I’d take a punt on that wouldn’t you? https
@Nonaesthetic50 @beg_chris @simonahac The old 97% & what about the 3% who disagree argument. Well there are none whose argument have stood up to peer review. https://t.co/ZVhCcmQtcK
@CzysteCieplo @rowerowesygnaly @RuchKierowcow @JarszaUkasz @Hejdasz1 @twjedrzejczyk @ZDM_Warszawa @MiastoJestNasze @ChlewickiMarcin @JanMencwel @R_A_Ziemkiewicz @tvnwarszawa (1) Tak była sonda - takie badania prowadziła historyk nauki prof. N. Oreskes (2)
RT @scook2214: Learning from mistakes in climate research https://t.co/W8m8skRrFS
Learning from mistakes in climate research https://t.co/W8m8skRrFS
@bosker_rick Garbage. Which scientists have said they were wrong? NASA is just one group that can use scientific data, evidence like core samples, etc to prove back thousands of years. So if evidence won’t convince you what would? https://t.co/ZVhCcmQtcK
@JimBair62221006 @6esm Jim 97%? This research suggests 99% https://t.co/ZVhCcmQtcK
Learning from mistakes in climate research | SpringerLink @lisamurkowski @SenDanSullivan @repdonyoung @GovDunleavy - #Alaska delegation & Gov- REQUIRED READING if you wish to deny that #ClimateChangeIsReal https://t.co/LvQIjZ9QkC
Learning from mistakes in climate research | SpringerLink https://t.co/BIeTrByWQ5
@a1desley @itaintfacebook @theboltreport @rowandean @SkyNewsAust Rubbish! Total rubbish. Papers found to have findings against climate change were checked and proven wrong. No conspiracy just mistakes. https://t.co/ZVhCcn84Bk
@heidimountains @AGU_SciComm This sounds like a good conversation and it is always important to allow for people to shift their position, but those 3% of papers were all found to be flawed: https://t.co/MDFxDaVibW
@prudinx @PeterWMurphy1 97% has been found to be 100% once they corrected for errors... https://t.co/ZVhCcmQtcK
RT @o_weverton: Referências (de acordo com a ABNT - Associação Brasileira de Normas do Twitter) (1) https://t.co/dfwE7WIngN (2) https://t.c…
RT @o_weverton: Referências (de acordo com a ABNT - Associação Brasileira de Normas do Twitter) (1) https://t.co/dfwE7WIngN (2) https://t.c…
RT @o_weverton: Referências (de acordo com a ABNT - Associação Brasileira de Normas do Twitter) (1) https://t.co/dfwE7WIngN (2) https://t.c…
RT @o_weverton: Referências (de acordo com a ABNT - Associação Brasileira de Normas do Twitter) (1) https://t.co/dfwE7WIngN (2) https://t.c…
Referências (de acordo com a ABNT - Associação Brasileira de Normas do Twitter) (1) https://t.co/dfwE7WIngN (2) https://t.co/z3POPPaYzZ (3) https://t.co/bHx7smiOSQ (4) https://t.co/PprNQiXLFp (5) https://t.co/yk0IsabUlX (6) https://t.co/5O1OUaafvH
@izzynobre https://t.co/X8usmJvvpP recomendo a leitura, sobre os papers que negam o aquecimento global antropogenico serem irreplicaveis
@TheBruzundanga @izzynobre https://t.co/X8usmJvvpP verdade só 97% dos papers que tem posição sobre aquecimento global ser antropogênico endossam isso
@DocRichard @HeisenbergErwin @AndrewDessler @NikolovScience Don't forget about 38 denier papers that failed reproducibility: Benestad RE, Nuccitelli D, Lewandowsky S, Hayhoe K, Hygen HO, Dorland R, Cook J: Learning from mistakes in climate research. Theor
@PaulG16808960 @JayAtkins83 @SeanMPlace @cascadetommy @alllibertynews @justinamash Based on another article. https://t.co/sx4VVlTJeY
@RikHJHarmsen @yamlima1 @reportfromNL In de kleine groep van peer-reviewed articles die de menselijke hand in de opwarming ontkennen zijn trouwens opvallend veel fouten en zwakheden gevonden: https://t.co/GQpPgdvf8P (3/n) -BV
RT @CJPomfret: @vanOnselenP Sadly the figure of 1% of scientists who disagree with climate change is not even correct. It’s zero! Zero! Why…
@bennoba @MGoldschlager @vanOnselenP It’s not what I believe. It’s what the facts are from this research I posted for you earlier for a start. prove this is wrong. https://t.co/ZVhCcmQtcK
@Michael18070094 @vanOnselenP @Sandra_Sully They found that the 3% had errors. https://t.co/ZVhCcn84Bk
@cheryl_kernot @vanOnselenP It’s should be zero then... https://t.co/ZVhCcmQtcK
@vanOnselenP Sadly the figure of 1% of scientists who disagree with climate change is not even correct. It’s zero! Zero! Why the eff do we even allow an alternate argument? https://t.co/ZVhCcmQtcK
RT @JFritzjames: when science shows (via replication) that climate change denial is wrong... #climatechange #ClimateAction https://t.co/Z…
when science shows (via replication) that climate change denial is wrong... #climatechange #ClimateAction https://t.co/ZSXJnsQEZY
@John4freedom76 @ABC Here’s a great research paper that investigated the theory that the warming we are seeing right now is natural (not man made) https://t.co/iIahdVWcXe
Learning from mistakes in climate research | SpringerLink. The 3% of Climate Chaos Contrarians made methodological mistakes in their science or assumptions. Here’s the proof. https://t.co/xUfed51Uvv
Learning from mistakes in climate research | SpringerLink. The 3% of Climate Chaos Contrarians made methodological mistakes in their science or assumptions. Here’s the proof. https://t.co/jFyzjnoAZ6
@IonaItalia You definitely don't see this level of credulity in other fields. Look at climate science, for example. Only 2% of papers have even offered up alternative scenarios to AGW, and those have been called out for bias and flawed methodologies from
RT @michaelshermer: It's 97% papers-not scientists-that support AGW @RickSantorum @billmaher 3% papers are non-replicable & inconsistent ht…
Rappel important. https://t.co/CyxiGG0RJd https://t.co/CyxiGG0RJd
@johnstretch Science is not conducted as a matter of opinion or debate. If someone thinks they have a new idea, they submit it for publication and it is peerreviewed. Of course this is not fool-proof, as we discuss here: https://t.co/N1pHmOKsPT
RT @RasmusBenestad: Let's learn from mistakes in climate research: https://t.co/YpvjifKqNB
RT @RasmusBenestad: Let's learn from mistakes in climate research: https://t.co/YpvjifKqNB
@QLeap4Life Daar is uitvoerig naar gekeken. Zie bijv https://t.co/f9Ht13AT1T en https://t.co/GQpPgdvf8P -BV
Let's learn from mistakes in climate research: https://t.co/YpvjifKqNB
@PhilPrange @kaitlinnaughten You’re welcome. https://t.co/10LRoOHQhS
@KoenRoeffaers @MathiasB9 @de_NVA @WilfriedVdaele Wetenschap in vraag stellen... Verschil tussen wetenschap en twitter is peer review. Iets in vraag stellen op twitter is geen wetenschap. AGW is geen theorietje: https://t.co/P7FNeAszjw en nog leesvoer: htt
RT @CriticalStress_: Anthropogenic climate change is a testable theory that is observed directly. Every argument against it has been found…
RT @CriticalStress_: Anthropogenic climate change is a testable theory that is observed directly. Every argument against it has been found…
Anthropogenic climate change is a testable theory that is observed directly. Every argument against it has been found to be essentially cherry-picking and/or logical fallacies. Indeed, there are major errors in all papers arguing against it. https://t.co/d
@opiemuyo @trina2945 @JayInslee Recent analysis shows it is actually higher than 97% of peer reviewed research supports the finding that the climate is warming and humans are responsible. It’s not opinion. It’s science and it’s verified through peer review
RT @AndreuEscriva: THIS👇👇👇 https://t.co/sOT6LB6YlS
@past_is_future @ClimateHuman @Mark_A_Lunn Agree with all that. I think we were just curious about who and what the 3% were, besides papers by Spencer & Christy etc. Seems to be Humlum, Scafetta, solar, GCR and hotspot stuff according to supplement t
@BulgariaDK @GlobalenDK @Kasperloeye @DanskDf1995 Så han står ret alene med sine konklusioner. Og når man ser på andre studier, der forsøger at finde frem til andre forklaringer på global opvarmning end CO2-udledning, finder man fejl på fejl (her er 38 kli
RT @ClimateHuman: There's evidence that those 3% are mainly cranks, and should therefore probably be filtered out. But I suppose applying t…
There's evidence that those 3% are mainly cranks, and should therefore probably be filtered out. But I suppose applying that filter in a fair and objective way is difficult. https://t.co/6c02mBCdWX
RT @AndreuEscriva: THIS👇👇👇 https://t.co/sOT6LB6YlS
RT @AndreuEscriva: THIS👇👇👇 https://t.co/sOT6LB6YlS
RT @AndreuEscriva: THIS👇👇👇 https://t.co/sOT6LB6YlS
THIS👇👇👇
@gjvu @Rick__N Laten we dit eens omdraaien. De bekende 3%. "Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed" https://t.co/J0JzyFM63o Of meer wetenschappelijk: https://t.co/Y29bpkdtbB En Galilei wordt hierin ook genoe
RT @michaelshermer: It's 97% papers-not scientists-that support AGW @RickSantorum @billmaher 3% papers are non-replicable & inconsistent ht…
RT @icarus62: @KDouglas7 @EC_Kosters @veldenf @DutchNS @tan123 I've seen a *lot* of what is claimed to be evidence, in blog posts and Tweet…
@KDouglas7 @EC_Kosters @veldenf @DutchNS @tan123 I've seen a *lot* of what is claimed to be evidence, in blog posts and Tweets and whatnot. It's all fundamentally flawed. https://t.co/Jbbrb0xr6s
@eachus @scalpoptions @tan123 Sure, the original comment was on this study: https://t.co/dbxWN1Qrgg I agree that a single peer reviewed study does not mean something is 100% correct - it must then stand up to further testing. The peer reviewed papers op