@y5296k96fj @MafinhaBarba @bbcbrasil E um artigo completo pra enfiar, sem vaselina, no rabo de negacionista. https://t.co/acWY2gC070
@TomaszA80 @R4dos1aw @joakedzierska Publikacje naukowe, które twierdzą sprzeczne z konsensusem naukowym poglądy nt. klimatu często zawierają błędy merytoryczne lub nie da się ich zreplikować. https://t.co/PRmFc9fpnx Myślisz, że jesteś mądrzejszy od innych
@srentospace @LBMathiesen Hvad mener du? Der er udgivet en del forskning som forsøger at modsige AGW (ofte af de samme få mennesker) - problemet er bare, at denne forskning har vist sig at være fyldt med fejl. Her er, hvad der sker, når man kigger studiern
@ban_epp_gofroc @phorthbeing @reluctantlyjoe I rebutted your claim below by explaining that there are several papers supporting zoonosis, so your comparison fails. You can continue following AGW denialists in citing articles in off-topic Roy Society journ
@Catesby01 @Clarky351Clark @Batman2242 The 2013 review you are quoting is out of date. Science builds on science and they review their work hence in 2019 they found over 99% agree anthropogenic climate change is real and happening: https://t.co/ZVhCcn8CqS
@Catesby01 @Batman2242 Yes really Catesby! It’s good you are using science to argue your point but you are using out of date science. The Cook et all research was from 2013 which in 2019 was peer reviewed and found to be wrong. https://t.co/ZVhCcn8CqS http
@DavidCant007 @Batman2242 David you need to update your research from 2013 to 2021. It’s more than 99% of scientists have found evidence that anthropogenic climate change is real. https://t.co/ZVhCcn8CqS https://t.co/l6sNxlX8Ui
@ban_epp_gofroc @PhilippMarkolin He's a domain expert in virology, pathogen/outbreak origins, etc. As with AGW denialism, folks who lack domain expertise in the pertinent science (ex: climate science) use statistics to reach absurd conclusions in that dom
@ban_epp_gofroc @PhilippMarkolin You're just again illustrating the overlap your crowd has with AGW denialists. No wonder Matt Ridley is arguably the leading male lab leak conspiracist. 😁 https://t.co/fYKom3Gy3A https://t.co/zhXQ7asFPt https://t.co/2Cte
@stuartjdneil @emilyakopp @RoyalStatSoc A recent paper in Royal Society journal ('Proceedings of the Royal Society A') claimed the long-term atmospheric CO2 increase was non-anthropogenic. Of course that conclusion violates conservation of mass, yet the p
@AnEmergentI @AlecStapp @slatestarcodex Seen this patterns before... https://t.co/9kvulVDD8f
@Real_CB1 @G_Giglinger @MiauRizius @BR24 Übrigens hier ein echtes Paper, in dem auch erwähnt wird, dass die Journals in denen die Artikel von Soon veröffentlicht wurden, gar keine Kompetenz hatten um den Artikel zu reviewn: https://t.co/oLonIdWkcx Aber sic
@theresphysics Disappointing to see a Royal Society journal publish such nonsense. But that sometimes happens with out-of-scope journals where statistics are used without domain expertise. 🤷♂️ https://t.co/Q4tVqUYaHP https://t.co/EaEtjgsyad [https://t.
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 @SteB777: This gets me, because if they really believe their denial nonsense, why not publish their claims, so other scientists can chal…
RT @SteB777: This gets me, because if they really believe their denial nonsense, why not publish their claims, so other scientists can chal…
RT @SteB777: This gets me, because if they really believe their denial nonsense, why not publish their claims, so other scientists can chal…
RT @SteB777: This gets me, because if they really believe their denial nonsense, why not publish their claims, so other scientists can chal…
RT @SteB777: This gets me, because if they really believe their denial nonsense, why not publish their claims, so other scientists can chal…
RT @SteB777: This gets me, because if they really believe their denial nonsense, why not publish their claims, so other scientists can chal…
RT @SteB777: This gets me, because if they really believe their denial nonsense, why not publish their claims, so other scientists can chal…
RT @SteB777: This gets me, because if they really believe their denial nonsense, why not publish their claims, so other scientists can chal…
RT @SteB777: This gets me, because if they really believe their denial nonsense, why not publish their claims, so other scientists can chal…
This gets me, because if they really believe their denial nonsense, why not publish their claims, so other scientists can challenge their supposed science. When they try, all their papers are found to be full of basic errors. https://t.co/3Hlr1x1FaE 15/
@Lykos_Phi @GoldsteinBlum @EvangelionUnit Was labersch du komische Sachen?? Das Zitat stammt aus der verlinkten Studie: https://t.co/G20X19E7LI
@Gisi24509 @trotty76 @climacritic Nono vengono pubblicate tutte quelle meritevoli, poi guarda caso, quando quelli contrari alla causa antropica vengono revisionati succede questo https://t.co/CKR6Y3vuOW
@M17828764Marion @JunkScience "The analysis carried out by [Humlum et al.] ... had discarded a large fraction of data for the Holocene which did not fit their claims." https://t.co/9MK9FfFtAy https://t.co/xCkdnT37cL You're saying Desmog is wrong and Mil
RT @Ceist8: @MarkBoslough @Entangle2030 @JunkScience @MichaelEMann @AP @SumanNaishadham Benestad et al 2015 examined 38 papers by so-called…
RT @Ceist8: @MarkBoslough @Entangle2030 @JunkScience @MichaelEMann @AP @SumanNaishadham Benestad et al 2015 examined 38 papers by so-called…
RT @Ceist8: @MarkBoslough @Entangle2030 @JunkScience @MichaelEMann @AP @SumanNaishadham Benestad et al 2015 examined 38 papers by so-called…
RT @Ceist8: @MarkBoslough @Entangle2030 @JunkScience @MichaelEMann @AP @SumanNaishadham Benestad et al 2015 examined 38 papers by so-called…
@MarkBoslough @Entangle2030 @JunkScience @MichaelEMann @AP @SumanNaishadham Benestad et al 2015 examined 38 papers by so-called "skeptics" like Soon, Scafetta, Spencer, Braswell, Idso, Svensmark, Shaviv etc. They are all flawed "Learning from mistakes i
@Artist_is_in @navigator087 @luisbaram 2016: 2412 papers, 97% agree. https://t.co/I5KIwLL8ft 2019: 11,602 papers, 100% agree. https://t.co/XKOaYR0zcZ 2021: 153 scientists, 98.7% agree. https://t.co/wOBbsXCGTe 2021: 3000 papers, >99% agree. https://t.co/
@rmdeag sin embargo, el 97% por ciento de la literatura publicada afirma la realidad del cambio climático antropogenico, y el 3% restante ni siquiera es capaz de replicar sus propios resultados https://t.co/SLDGavdppc
@sportandradio There is no debate. There are absurd deniers sponsored by the fossil fuel industry, and contrarian "scientists", dare no publish in a scientific context, because when they do, their arguments are found to be full of basic errors. https://t.c
@Proteus1951 @andrea_xtr @balza76 @thecoolmauri @OfficialTozzi @stevianelli Ok: https://t.co/PhiX96w3kU e https://t.co/1YLGDRZuxw E poi tutte le fonti citate da quegli articoli, ma non bastano i caratteri.
RT @CoyaudSylvie: @GiovanniCerbai2 @OfficialTozzi 2 premi Nobel che non si sono mai occupati di clima e lo 0,1% dei climatologi con pubblic…
@GiovanniCerbai2 @OfficialTozzi 2 premi Nobel che non si sono mai occupati di clima e lo 0,1% dei climatologi con pubblicazioni (abbondanti!) smentite dalle osservazioni e piene di errori: https://t.co/1njwAK3Vda Principali errori e nomi dei loro autori n
RT @critica_omette: Hanno preso 38 di questi studi e li hanno controllati e ripetuto la metodologia. In tutti i casi hanno trovato errori…
Hanno preso 38 di questi studi e li hanno controllati e ripetuto la metodologia. In tutti i casi hanno trovato errori metodologici gravi o falle che li invalidavano. Correggendole, i risultati confermano la causa antropica. https://t.co/LeEjQZhI1D
@JaydenW67403763 @Kenneth72712993 Underlined words in the 'fkn article' are called "links" You can click on them. They bring you to peer reviewed study. https://t.co/Q3GPEfhGY2 https://t.co/fhcVL8wgsn
@Kenneth72712993 It's debunk in supplementary material of a peer reviewed study : https://t.co/fhcVL8wgsn https://t.co/Q3GPEfhGY2 Miskolczi was (again) arguing about *saturated* CO2 effect. That's truly pathetic.
RT @SteB777: @ProfSteveKeen If it was down to funding, the FF industry could just fund their own science, to contradict mainstream climate…
RT @SteB777: @ProfSteveKeen If it was down to funding, the FF industry could just fund their own science, to contradict mainstream climate…
@ProfSteveKeen If it was down to funding, the FF industry could just fund their own science, to contradict mainstream climate science. But here's the rub, all published contrarian science on climate, has been found to be full of basic errors and flawed. ht
@DropFred2 @WelshDragon23 @bbcphobe @MatthewStadlen @TiceRichard The widespread scientific consensus is widely known and not seriously disputed but here you go champ. btw, if you think wikipedia can be easily edited to suit any idiot's uninformed opinion
@deGrootMartinus @mkeulemans @DeltaresNL Het bovenstaande blijkt eenvoudigweg uit het wetenschappelijk onderzoek naar de 'kwaliteit' van zogeheten 'sceptische' publicaties: https://t.co/qFJ66ijPx0 M.a.w. het is een feit en geen opinie.
@deGrootMartinus @mkeulemans @DeltaresNL Voor de wetenschappelijke publicatie, zie: https://t.co/qFJ66ijPx0 Zogeheten 'sceptici' blijken telkens dezelfde fouten te maken: https://t.co/ud5HPQCoDn
@aguedescartoon @Pirulla25 A sua opinião está equivocada, siga os fatos e os dados. E deixo uma pergunta (e a resposta) para você: por que os “cientistas” negacionistas não frequentam congressos da área climática para debater o tema? Porque não tem dados q
@Anymous84861064 Benestad et al 2015 examines the small number of flawed papers by “contrarians” "Learning from mistakes in climate research" https://t.co/q80XhnflUS
@rdlarter @ClimateOfGavin @TheDisproof No, you don't need to. https://t.co/ESYpKtJ6Qy https://t.co/ZX0ASnNO2V https://t.co/5WBHIQAghU
@JanNordhagen2 @Essensielt_no Jeg stopper der. Benestad viser også til et paper jeg var medforfatter på som kan anbefales lest: https://t.co/Q23qZWhJ1f Jeg vil faktisk påstå at Benestad sitt svar, i motsetning til Dagsvik sitt notat, viser til god forskni
@theprayer2023 Querido, mudanças climáticas antropogênicas são consenso científico e fato inequívoco. Os únicos 3% negando isso se baseiam em estudos sem metodologia adequada, que omitem dados e/ou com erros em física básica. Isso não é "outro lado" é nega
@12th_tim @LucianTritt Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus https://t.co/4gHU2IyRyZ
@ianLeedsUtdfan @DLatarche @jasonkilanski @BenGoldsmith @KonstantinKisin Scientists who are wrong don't get "censored" they just get refuted with evidence. Benestad et al 2016 examines the flawed papers by “contrarians” "Learning from mistakes in climate
RT @Ceist8: @ItsTheAtmospher @MatthewWielicki @25_cycle @ClimateOfGavin Benestad et al 2016 examines the flawed papers by “contrarians” In…
RT @Ceist8: @ItsTheAtmospher @MatthewWielicki @25_cycle @ClimateOfGavin Benestad et al 2016 examines the flawed papers by “contrarians” In…
@ItsTheAtmospher @MatthewWielicki @25_cycle @ClimateOfGavin Benestad et al 2016 examines the flawed papers by “contrarians” Including some of Scafetta's https://t.co/q80XhnflUS
@PsiloX @verycentrist @TheFarm99410868 @_ClimateCraze No, Not at all. The tiny number of "contrarians" are not usually subject matter experts and haven't published research papers on the subject. Or if they have, it's in non-peer-reviewed "pay to publish
@ValdejalonMemes @MiguelPuga44 Además ya hicieron un estudio similar en 2013 que llegaban a la misma conclusión y utilizando una metodología diferente. https://t.co/WnCH7niPMo Y otro estudio que sugiere que de los pocos que niegan el cambio climático ant
@mwt2008 @Andy_May_Writer @monkyhead8 Benestad et al 2016 examines the flawed papers by “contrarians” https://t.co/q80XhnflUS
@theresphysics https://t.co/9L3N5xZ0hH https://t.co/CjWKXESJjN So the Alimonti et al. paper is another example nonsense in an off-topic / out-of-scope journal? And congratulations to @TheDisproof. https://t.co/zhXQ7asFPt https://t.co/vZLm1mKbw4
@BadBoy17_Fr @lady_coquelicot @lorentzinvest @LCyclable @Velovebikes @JosSluijsmans 5 scientifiques un peu perdus qui donnent leur avis VS https://t.co/8W04mbYVGo + https://t.co/1z1q8TMtFs + https://t.co/8RkvJtyG3e
@chr0n0kun @adatimum @micah_erfan Maybe you should learn more https://t.co/DtRXs5ClpC
@OwenPryce2 @NATOpotato2000 @DavidBlythBEM @GaryLineker 2. If you remove the flawed studies, the number is closer to 99% https://t.co/FxswJoZUm7
@DarienJDJ @GaryLineker 🙄 Blocked for being just too dumb. https://t.co/PP8418q97a
RT @Knjshiraishi: 日本では「気候変動には諸説あるが」という留保をいまだにつけることが多いが、誤りだ。気候学者の間で議論が割れてなんかいない。気候学者がわずかに存在する懐疑論を支持する論文を再計算した結果、全ての論文でデータや方法論に問題が存在した。以前著者の説…
RT @Knjshiraishi: 日本では「気候変動には諸説あるが」という留保をいまだにつけることが多いが、誤りだ。気候学者の間で議論が割れてなんかいない。気候学者がわずかに存在する懐疑論を支持する論文を再計算した結果、全ての論文でデータや方法論に問題が存在した。以前著者の説…
RT @Knjshiraishi: 日本では「気候変動には諸説あるが」という留保をいまだにつけることが多いが、誤りだ。気候学者の間で議論が割れてなんかいない。気候学者がわずかに存在する懐疑論を支持する論文を再計算した結果、全ての論文でデータや方法論に問題が存在した。以前著者の説…
RT @Knjshiraishi: 日本では「気候変動には諸説あるが」という留保をいまだにつけることが多いが、誤りだ。気候学者の間で議論が割れてなんかいない。気候学者がわずかに存在する懐疑論を支持する論文を再計算した結果、全ての論文でデータや方法論に問題が存在した。以前著者の説…
@newitt_a @BurnsideNew @jonburkeUK Meta studies all conclude there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on AGW. https://t.co/PP8418q97a
RT @DTavazzi: @gianpiero1965 @FilBarbera Che gli scettici siano censurati è un’altra delle frottole del negazionismo. Hanno sì prodotto dei…
RT @FilBarbera: Esempio importante La scienza non si fa su Twitter, così come la temperatura non si rileva dalla Yaris 😬. 👇
RT @DTavazzi: @gianpiero1965 @FilBarbera Che gli scettici siano censurati è un’altra delle frottole del negazionismo. Hanno sì prodotto dei…
RT @FilBarbera: Esempio importante La scienza non si fa su Twitter, così come la temperatura non si rileva dalla Yaris 😬. 👇
Esempio importante La scienza non si fa su Twitter, così come la temperatura non si rileva dalla Yaris 😬. 👇
@gianpiero1965 @FilBarbera Che gli scettici siano censurati è un’altra delle frottole del negazionismo. Hanno sì prodotto dei paper, che però sono stati massacrati in peer review per errori di calcolo, assunzioni sbagliate… questo non è recentissimo ma le
RT @Knjshiraishi: 日本では「気候変動には諸説あるが」という留保をいまだにつけることが多いが、誤りだ。気候学者の間で議論が割れてなんかいない。気候学者がわずかに存在する懐疑論を支持する論文を再計算した結果、全ての論文でデータや方法論に問題が存在した。以前著者の説…
RT @Knjshiraishi: 日本では「気候変動には諸説あるが」という留保をいまだにつけることが多いが、誤りだ。気候学者の間で議論が割れてなんかいない。気候学者がわずかに存在する懐疑論を支持する論文を再計算した結果、全ての論文でデータや方法論に問題が存在した。以前著者の説…