RT @SilverVVulpes: Climate change skepticism as another victim of the replication crisis https://t.co/kiQ3weJYPY Paper: https://t.co/DQp8a…
RT @SilverVVulpes: Climate change skepticism as another victim of the replication crisis https://t.co/kiQ3weJYPY Paper: https://t.co/DQp8a…
RT @SilverVVulpes: Climate change skepticism as another victim of the replication crisis https://t.co/kiQ3weJYPY Paper: https://t.co/DQp8a…
Climate change skepticism as another victim of the replication crisis https://t.co/kiQ3weJYPY Paper: https://t.co/DQp8amWS66
RT @AndreuEscriva: Aquí el artículo original de, entre otros, @dana1981 (enorme periodista), @KHayhoe y John Cook (@skepticscience). https:…
Aquí el artículo original de, entre otros, @dana1981 (enorme periodista), @KHayhoe y John Cook (@skepticscience). https://t.co/rLomnb9EmC
@Steffennerdal @Nina_Jensen @KRmgr1 vitenskaplige resultater skal etterprøves & gjenskapes andre uavhengige kolleger https://t.co/7m5WAJPfHi
@KRmgr1 @unnieik @NRKViten feil. Jeg har gjennomgått sentrale artikler som det henvises til & funnet grove feil. https://t.co/7m5WAJPfHi
@GoodsJL @tan123 It is debunked in the supporting material in https://t.co/7m5WAJPfHi
Om målet er å ha flest referanser for Carl I, kan han godt ta med disse også https://t.co/3Ni9ac1tN8 #dax18
@GoodsJL @tan123 The claim about moon's role is old and more like astrology. Lacks physics. Check out https://t.co/CGcuMrQIQZ
@GoodsJL @tan123 It's not a scientific publication. Not convinced about curves that cannot be traced back to roots https://t.co/QPOQ7vdcqO
@tan123 @Fusion the medicine against #FakeNews is transparency + replication of results https://t.co/kjRXnFv0UM. But do U care about facts?
RT @michaelshermer: It's 97% papers-not scientists-that support AGW @RickSantorum @billmaher 3% papers are non-replicable & inconsistent ht…
TAC: Learning from mistakes in climate research https://t.co/uWcW2MwuQj https://t.co/1W3zRUJi81
RT @michaelshermer: It's 97% papers-not scientists-that support AGW @RickSantorum @billmaher 3% papers are non-replicable & inconsistent ht…
RT @michaelshermer: It's 97% papers-not scientists-that support AGW @RickSantorum @billmaher 3% papers are non-replicable & inconsistent ht…
@KRmgr1 @Steffennerdal @forskningno du finner svaret i https://t.co/7m5WAJPfHi (supporting material)
@TheGunFeed Here is some more scientific scrutiny: https://t.co/k69oYnMXdn It's there, it's just ignored by climate change deniers.
RT @michaelshermer: It's 97% papers-not scientists-that support AGW @RickSantorum @billmaher 3% papers are non-replicable & inconsistent ht…
@RogTallbloke @Iyamwhatiyam3 CO2 is more effective (Venus). GCMs reproduce global warming -> https://t.co/QPOQ7vdcqO https://t.co/nPvJP8Iniy
@RogTallbloke @Iyamwhatiyam3 those models have not been validated. https://t.co/7m5WAJPfHi
@eachus @scottinfukie @tan123 wrong. U must read https://t.co/aEZMltdZRM SM
@eachus @scottinfukie @tan123 not: see supporting material in https://t.co/aEZMltdZRM
What about the 3% of #climatechange hold outs? Basis of research is reproducibility, contrarian papers don't hold up https://t.co/f7AtvupxrB
@KRmgr1 @Steffennerdal @geoforskning pussig spørsmål. https://t.co/hucptA1Ldg
Learning from mistakes in climate research https://t.co/Lb6JTxREg6 #springerlink
@916_stevo @jasonstanden @TheCalebBond @jarahcrook you can even read about the methodological flaws in the other 3% https://t.co/lXfcJrDCWq
Oppgitt over overfladisk dekning av #klimadebatten i @NRKno sprer klimaropaganda https://t.co/LCyyt6JcQ8 https://t.co/9nWhcrBKw5 #NRKklima
RT @RasmusBenestad: Svar på 'De skeptiske': Learning from mistakes in climate research https://t.co/2LT10sJgUv #NRKklima
Svar på 'De skeptiske': Learning from mistakes in climate research https://t.co/2LT10sJgUv #NRKklima
“Learning from mistakes in climate research” http://t.co/6q3B04QCbZ
Colleagues at the #IPCC workshop have noticed our paper 'Learning from mistakes' http://t.co/FlaDPYq4e8 @hohygen @KHayhoe @kamiped
Learning from mistakes in climate research - Springer http://t.co/6JRArlCvb0
RT @AlyJohnsonKurts: Study shows the 2% of papers not accepting anthropogenic #climatechange have major analysis + methodology flaws http:/…
RT @AlyJohnsonKurts: Study shows the 2% of papers not accepting anthropogenic #climatechange have major analysis + methodology flaws http:/…
RT @AlyJohnsonKurts: Study shows the 2% of papers not accepting anthropogenic #climatechange have major analysis + methodology flaws http:/…
RT @AlyJohnsonKurts: Study shows the 2% of papers not accepting anthropogenic #climatechange have major analysis + methodology flaws http:/…
RT @AlyJohnsonKurts: Study shows the 2% of papers not accepting anthropogenic #climatechange have major analysis + methodology flaws http:/…
RT @AlyJohnsonKurts: Study shows the 2% of papers not accepting anthropogenic #climatechange have major analysis + methodology flaws http:/…
Study shows the 2% of papers not accepting anthropogenic #climatechange have major analysis + methodology flaws http://t.co/4frNYu0t4o
RT @tveitdal: Artikkel: @RasmusBenestad m.fl. http://t.co/Rvza7eai5c https://t.co/6IC72PAGcT
Learning from mistakes in climate research. And why replication is important. http://t.co/inlHwOyNu2 #science
RT @tonebjorndal: 2% av forskningsartikler avviser at klimaendringene er menneskeskapt. Hvorfor? @RasmusBenestad http://t.co/g8OUmpHfK2 htt…
Among papers stating a position on anthropogenic global warming, 2% recjects it. Why? asks @RasmusBenestad @KHayhoe + http://t.co/g8OUmpHfK2
2% av forskningsartikler avviser at klimaendringene er menneskeskapt. Hvorfor? @RasmusBenestad http://t.co/g8OUmpHfK2 http://t.co/5jITUURJWV
I'm reading http://t.co/wJBtVty5J6 #springerlink
I'm reading http://t.co/PdmzKYE2Pd #springerlink
RT @tveitdal: Artikkel: @RasmusBenestad m.fl. http://t.co/Rvza7eai5c https://t.co/6IC72PAGcT
Artikkel: @RasmusBenestad m.fl. http://t.co/Rvza7eai5c https://t.co/6IC72PAGcT
RT @onetreetwotrees: Learning from mistakes in climate research. http://t.co/kwgispxTGJ #springerlink
RT @onetreetwotrees: Learning from mistakes in climate research. http://t.co/kwgispxTGJ #springerlink
Learning from mistakes in climate research. http://t.co/kwgispxTGJ #springerlink
97% scientists say global warming is man made; a paper now shows the other 3% had flaws in methods.. http://t.co/AIHTEUYdq9 #climatechange
New paper finds common errors among 3% of #climate papers that reject #globalwarming http://t.co/Cb0eawTmhe / http://t.co/2ufMKRsgjZ
@rdrake98 we know that (published) “climate change deniers” do poor analysis of weak models of cherry-picked data: http://t.co/wPFSIjiV5b
New paper examines the 2% of publications that reject anthropogenic climate change. Says methodological errors exist http://t.co/P8u7uvSRuC
RT @michaelshermer: It's 97% papers-not scientists-that support AGW @RickSantorum @billmaher 3% papers are non-replicable & inconsistent ht…
RT @michaelshermer: It's 97% papers-not scientists-that support AGW @RickSantorum @billmaher 3% papers are non-replicable & inconsistent ht…
RT @michaelshermer: It's 97% papers-not scientists-that support AGW @RickSantorum @billmaher 3% papers are non-replicable & inconsistent ht…
Epistemically defective: #Prophets use of nonexpert assessment of #climate #scientific expert opinions to intimidate http://t.co/QLV3XVZd9f
RT @michaelshermer: It's 97% papers-not scientists-that support AGW @RickSantorum @billmaher 3% papers are non-replicable & inconsistent ht…
RT @michaelshermer: It's 97% papers-not scientists-that support AGW @RickSantorum @billmaher 3% papers are non-replicable & inconsistent ht…
RT @michaelshermer: It's 97% papers-not scientists-that support AGW @RickSantorum @billmaher 3% papers are non-replicable & inconsistent ht…
RT @michaelshermer: It's 97% papers-not scientists-that support AGW @RickSantorum @billmaher 3% papers are non-replicable & inconsistent ht…
RT @michaelshermer: It's 97% papers-not scientists-that support AGW @RickSantorum @billmaher 3% papers are non-replicable & inconsistent ht…
RT @michaelshermer: It's 97% papers-not scientists-that support AGW @RickSantorum @billmaher 3% papers are non-replicable & inconsistent ht…
It's 97% papers-not scientists-that support AGW @RickSantorum @billmaher 3% papers are non-replicable & inconsistent http://t.co/3mrVFhOhiD
Attempts to debunk the idea of human-led climate change are based on shoddy, non-rigorous scientific practice: http://t.co/dYoXOTQNFG
I'm reading http://t.co/rwO3FWkwhr #springerlink
RT @arpaumbria: Learning from mistakes in climate research http://t.co/vpYnHI8Rma #climatechange
Learning from mistakes in climate research http://t.co/LVX2ZJVkKS #springerlink
You link to opinions. I link to studies. Most published papers that were skeptical of #AGW were flawed: @JamesViser http://t.co/hiYPQwSVZ1
Learning from mistakes in climate research http://t.co/vTmMSt8UC1 #climatechange
Ecco gli errori più comuni dei paper che negano i cambiamenti climatici http://t.co/kIjhZi8zKA
Learning from mistakes in climate research http://t.co/vpYnHI8Rma #climatechange
RT @stephen_rees: Ever wondered about the 2% of papers that reject anthropogenic global warming? They are bunk. http://t.co/l798rTlWVI
97% of peer-reviewed papers support #ClimateChange consensus; the other 3% have problems: Study: http://t.co/hiYPQwSVZ1 #CoPolitics
RT @stephen_rees: Ever wondered about the 2% of papers that reject anthropogenic global warming? They are bunk. http://t.co/l798rTlWVI
RT @michaelshermer: Here's the take-home if you don't have time to read the article or original paper, available: http://t.co/2MZ51k1l60 ht…
http://t.co/2GSk6UIpRN "Learning from mistakes in climate research" (via http://t.co/i2LY73ESsp )
new study: contrarian views of climate change & replication of scientific results: http://t.co/DOlHZoNmni
What is wrong with the 2% papers that reject Anthropogenic Global Warming? http://t.co/SR8a2CnNW7
RT @michaelshermer: Here's the take-home if you don't have time to read the article or original paper, available: http://t.co/2MZ51k1l60 ht…
RT @michaelshermer: Here's the take-home if you don't have time to read the article or original paper, available: http://t.co/2MZ51k1l60 ht…
Climate change DENIAL is Bad Science: http://t.co/X392gnBuIv
RT @michaelshermer: Here's the take-home if you don't have time to read the article or original paper, available: http://t.co/2MZ51k1l60 ht…
RT @michaelshermer: Here's the take-home if you don't have time to read the article or original paper, available: http://t.co/2MZ51k1l60 ht…
Study: Selected papers from climate skeptics don't do #science very well HT @grist http://t.co/VxanawQm32 #climatechange #climatedenier
Learning From Mistakes In Climate Research: Don't do #BadScience. You'll get caught. http://t.co/47rJJtTgA5 #springerlink
Questionable physics and incomplete data sets: scientists try to replicate climate denier findings #ClimateChange http://t.co/47rJJtTgA5
RT @michaelshermer: Here's the take-home if you don't have time to read the article or original paper, available: http://t.co/2MZ51k1l60 ht…
Learning from mistakes in climate research - Online First - Springer http://t.co/1yHtSU1nQN
Learning from mistakes in climate research http://t.co/hpb3alRBiR #springerlink
RT @michaelshermer: Here's the take-home if you don't have time to read the article or original paper, available: http://t.co/2MZ51k1l60 ht…
RT @michaelshermer: Here's the take-home if you don't have time to read the article or original paper, available: http://t.co/2MZ51k1l60 ht…
RT @IanHall_CU: Neat examination of 38 recent examples of contrarian climate research: Learning from mistakes in climate research http://t…
Neat examination of 38 recent examples of contrarian climate research: Learning from mistakes in climate research http://t.co/ny7ep0ZWrb
RT @michaelshermer: Here's the take-home if you don't have time to read the article or original paper, available: http://t.co/2MZ51k1l60 ht…