RT @SoniaBridi: Estava procurando esse link. Obrigada @carlosrittl Os 3 por cento não passam pela revisão científica. https://t.co/2AVg5bP…
RT @SoniaBridi: Estava procurando esse link. Obrigada @carlosrittl Os 3 por cento não passam pela revisão científica. https://t.co/2AVg5bP…
RT @SoniaBridi: Estava procurando esse link. Obrigada @carlosrittl Os 3 por cento não passam pela revisão científica. https://t.co/2AVg5bP…
Estava procurando esse link. Obrigada @carlosrittl Os 3 por cento não passam pela revisão científica. https://t.co/2AVg5bPOly
RT @carlosrittl: @SoniaBridi É mais do que isso,@SoniaBridi. Os outros 3% foram "debunked" https://t.co/EBhlg4Ve68
@SoniaBridi É mais do que isso,@SoniaBridi. Os outros 3% foram "debunked" https://t.co/EBhlg4Ve68
"Learning From Mistakes in Climate Research" on #springerlink https://t.co/1lPdVedOsi
@WilliamCSmithbr @Mikel_Jollett @MarkRuffalo It turns out, not very good ones: https://t.co/3JP1uaxaCY
Global warming is real and it's caused by us: https://t.co/DIz5tPIgzi #climatechange
.@secupp 's ignorance abt scientific method appalling on#RealTime w/@billmaher @adamgopnik here's a review article. https://t.co/F2RNhhGl7X
The arguments of climate change contrarians aren't "suppressed" They’re just not any good https://t.co/BcJ12jgeoE https://t.co/E9TR7bhs1S
RT @LyssAnthrope: Studies contrary to consensus finding (climate change caused by human activity) suffer from common pattern of errors http…
Studies contrary to consensus finding (climate change caused by human activity) suffer from common pattern of errors https://t.co/2sqEm613gd https://t.co/VlJB50XwtI
@MasvieKatrine @eivindtraedal @filiprygg @BjornLomborg Har du sett denne vitenskapelige artikkelen..? https://t.co/w21DI7VveL
@TomCrowe You presume the 3% are spot on. They are not. https://t.co/64d7W6905l
@spikedude73 You will find some answers to your questions here: https://t.co/doTJYSge5r
"@glouriais: 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? all flawed https://t.co/DD1ghN6EIP via @qz https://t.co/sHYQAqVWWe"
RT @gibbological: The 2-3% of scientific papers that do not support anthropogenic climate change cannot be replicated https://t.co/XiH4YlbB…
RT @gibbological: The 2-3% of scientific papers that do not support anthropogenic climate change cannot be replicated https://t.co/XiH4YlbB…
@LamarSmithTX21 you should read this. 2018 elections are around the corner! #climatechange #globalwarmingisreal https://t.co/doTJYSge5r
RT @gibbological: The 2-3% of scientific papers that do not support anthropogenic climate change cannot be replicated https://t.co/XiH4YlbB…
RT @gibbological: The 2-3% of scientific papers that do not support anthropogenic climate change cannot be replicated https://t.co/XiH4YlbB…
RT @gibbological: The 2-3% of scientific papers that do not support anthropogenic climate change cannot be replicated https://t.co/XiH4YlbB…
@GerdMoeBehrens This open-source, open-access meta-analysis of GW-skeptical papers explores problems with solar cycle hypotheses https://t.co/SHjJquvcYi
@GerdMoeBehrens Open-source, open-access critique of papers that contradict GW scientific consensus https://t.co/SHjJquvcYi +summary https://t.co/GtuybE4Xes
RT @gibbological: The 2-3% of scientific papers that do not support anthropogenic climate change cannot be replicated https://t.co/XiH4YlbB…
@GerdMoeBehrens @YouTube Open-source, open-access critique of papers that contradict GW scientific consensus https://t.co/SHjJquvcYi +summary https://t.co/GtuybE4Xes
@GerdMoeBehrens Open-source, open-access critique of papers that contradict GW scientific consensus: https://t.co/SHjJquvcYi https://t.co/GtuybE4Xes
RT @gibbological: The 2-3% of scientific papers that do not support anthropogenic climate change cannot be replicated https://t.co/XiH4YlbB…
The 2-3% of scientific papers that do not support anthropogenic climate change cannot be replicated https://t.co/XiH4YlbB3a
@GerdMoeBehrens https://t.co/SHjJquvcYi (And here's a summary in Quartz: https://t.co/GtuybE4Xes)
RT @DavidBenAmber: Direct link to study refuting those who deny #ClimateChange citing tiny fraction of studies. https://t.co/RoCDITIVhF htt…
Direct link to study refuting those who deny #ClimateChange citing tiny fraction of studies. https://t.co/RoCDITIVhF https://t.co/Tdy3qqAvz1
Learning from mistakes in climate research https://t.co/j2pZZgNrSH
@CadiG2 @jkrigsfeld @PrisonPlanet @CNN The 3% of studies are as fake as Trump https://t.co/lVCzweppFB
Learning from mistakes in climate research https://t.co/QToAQFxCDZ
RT @mbukows: @jakmarcin @krzylus okazuje się, że wyniki tych 2% artykułów naukowych, które kwestionują antropogeniczne ocieplenie są wyniki…
@jakmarcin @krzylus okazuje się, że wyniki tych 2% artykułów naukowych, które kwestionują antropogeniczne ocieplenie są wynikiem błędów https://t.co/0rGn9ROb2C
@gabrielkaibil @siprordelta_one Hay que leer ciencia de verdad. https://t.co/wwrlM8x7lN
Beyond polls. This analyzes shortcomings of the climate papers claiming no human-caused climate warming. Brilliant! https://t.co/LH6KE0teXL
And here is the full article. https://t.co/s9jK3sm6KY https://t.co/lIEAG2N1ef
RT @moorejh: Learning from mistakes in climate research https://t.co/4pmg6GxxxU #climatechange #climatology
Learning from mistakes in climate research https://t.co/4pmg6GxxxU #climatechange #climatology
Interesting article reviewing the 3% of studies that generated controversy on climate change https://t.co/xLJ1uRGzs6 https://t.co/XErTJb1tOI
@matteodefelice Learning from mistakes in climate research #springerlink https://t.co/UBxyOkiVyN
Replicating research from climate change deniers revealed "methodological flaws, & a pattern of common mistakes" https://t.co/a7Pd4Dslaq
Peer review of climate change denial: https://t.co/tycKHeZ5In
RT @DJSnM: We often hear that 97% of science papers support anthropogenic global warming. A team analyzed the other 3%. https://t.co/JAm6Es…
RT @SustainPath: Faulty #science and #climatechange denial - read the full paper here https://t.co/o6azb2qyYb
Faulty #science and #climatechange denial - read the full paper here https://t.co/o6azb2qyYb
فقط 3% من الاوراق العلمية تنكر التغييرات المناخية https://t.co/ijGifPDROp
RT @DJSnM: We often hear that 97% of science papers support anthropogenic global warming. A team analyzed the other 3%. https://t.co/JAm6Es…
What is wrong with the 3% of research that shows climate change is not man-made? A common logical failure found... https://t.co/9x5qT1cw0w
@sballister The actual scientific paper, written 2 years after the Forbes article you produced. Explain why it’s wrong. https://t.co/9IbMretoY3
Serious flaws in most papers disproving #anthropogenic #GlobalWarming Worrying, although not surprising! @350 https://t.co/o1WK7la3IE
For those of you that don't believe in climate change, I present to you a scientifical article; https://t.co/v9ZA7fs7Ej
Learning from mistakes in climate research #Irma2017 #climatechange https://t.co/VdRgF1fjXm
Learning from mistakes in climate research @GraemeHayes @andy_rowell https://t.co/WNEgRtYnxo
RT @pengchiara: The 3% denier papers: inappropriate statistical methods, or basing conclusions on misconceived or incomplete physics https:…
Turns out those climate change denying studies might not be based in good science, what a shocker https://t.co/kJqalOAYRF
@realDonaldTrump Papers denying AGW are flawed I'm reading this on #springerlink https://t.co/O200sau6yG
https://t.co/pr9jYaBrRK Analysis of the 2-3% of climate change deniers scientific papers and their flaws.
Good peer-reviewed OA paper on the methodological/observational mistakes of climate science denial. https://t.co/YRfXPzLa3g
RT @GregPuncher: The 3% of climate science studies that deny human-induced climate change are full of errors and cherry-picked data. https:…
RT @GregPuncher: The 3% of climate science studies that deny human-induced climate change are full of errors and cherry-picked data. https:…
RT @DJSnM: We often hear that 97% of science papers support anthropogenic global warming. A team analyzed the other 3%. https://t.co/JAm6Es…
Those 3% of research papers that say climate change isn't real? Scientists looked at them; they're flawed. https://t.co/hWVeH7z3Zy
The 3% of climate science studies that deny human-induced climate change are full of errors and cherry-picked data. https://t.co/wvwT1SNKZa
Link to the original scientific article: https://t.co/H1lIXCH2UW
https://t.co/JkKVnN6Iyk @alexaraujoc @Pirulla25 @claudioangelo Vocês vai gostar deste paper. Lembram daqueles 3%? Debunked!
RT @rachelbiogeog: @katherineefoley Article Link: https://t.co/wd2sM31yU8. Thank you @RasmusBenestad @dana1981 @STWorg @KHayhoe @hohygen Ro…
Oh, well surprise, surprise. The 3% of climate research papers that reject anthropogenic climate change are flawed: https://t.co/eLezaL7yDH
RT @smiller360: Review Shows Flawed Research in Reports that Deny Climate Change 10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5.pdf https://t.co/zwTi83yhq1
Review Shows Flawed Research in Reports that Deny Climate Change 10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5.pdf https://t.co/zwTi83yhq1
RT @JosephMajkut: Want to read scientific ground-and-pound? The 3% of published studies that dispute #AGW are demonstrably wrong. https://…
Climate denialists not only ignore 97% of the data, but the 3% they use is severely flawed @TakeThatScience https://t.co/PBoLXQ1MJe
@MarkRuffalo @AndreaChalupa Absolutely. Info is there: https://t.co/brJza7ALEL
I cite Benestad et al. "Learning from mistakes in climate research" Hint: it is usually the deniers making mistakes: https://t.co/brJza7ALEL
RT @MdM_LeSoir: Les 2% d'articles "scientifiques" contestant le changement climatique ? Remplis d'erreurs... #climat https://t.co/z9Kx4GRXKB
RT @DJSnM: We often hear that 97% of science papers support anthropogenic global warming. A team analyzed the other 3%. https://t.co/JAm6Es…
Learning from mistakes in climate research https://t.co/WyYxWhLGyS @dana1981 @skepticscience @UWAresearch @MichaelEMann
RT @DJSnM: We often hear that 97% of science papers support anthropogenic global warming. A team analyzed the other 3%. https://t.co/JAm6Es…
RT gryphonboy : You know those 2-3% of climate papers that reject HGW? Yea... they're probably wrong. hahaha https://t.co/RjdHwX9BGE
You know those 2-3% of climate papers that reject HGW? Yea... they're probably wrong. hahaha https://t.co/83Ork1uTnQ
RT @pengchiara: The 3% denier papers: inappropriate statistical methods, or basing conclusions on misconceived or incomplete physics https:…
RT @MdM_LeSoir: Les 2% d'articles "scientifiques" contestant le changement climatique ? Remplis d'erreurs... #climat https://t.co/z9Kx4GRXKB
Les 2% d'articles "scientifiques" contestant le changement climatique ? Remplis d'erreurs... #climat https://t.co/z9Kx4GRXKB
For the full pdf, go to https://t.co/aHgPjkPqFe :) https://t.co/Z6z9TxBIuR
Learning from mistakes in climate research https://t.co/4y6Wm43Xij
RT @Money_F_Nothing: Link: https://t.co/UqPGIue49t Review paper: https://t.co/sJGaQQqcYn
Link: https://t.co/UqPGIue49t Review paper: https://t.co/sJGaQQqcYn