• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

3% of scientific papers that deny climate change found to be flawed

Bergslagstroll

Bergslagstroll

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
6,952
Reaction score
1,550
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Peer-reviewed papers that contradicted manmade global warming have been found flawed in a new review.

Broadly, there were three main errors in the papers denying climate change. Many had cherry-picked the results that conveniently supported their conclusion, while ignoring other context or records. Then there were some that applied inappropriate “curve-fitting”—in which they would step farther and farther away from data until the points matched the curve of their choosing.

And of course, sometimes the papers just ignored physics altogether. “In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup,” the authors write.


Those who assert that these papers are correct while the other 97% are wrong are holding up science where the researchers had already decided what results they sought, the authors of the review say. Good science is objective—it doesn’t care what anyone wants the answers to be.
Click to expand...

https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/
 
The Chickens are Coming Home to Roost.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Peer-reviewed papers that contradicted manmade global warming have been found flawed in a new review.
Click to expand...
What the article claims doesn’t seem to be exactly what the actual paper quoted intended to do or did. They weren’t trying to assess the general quality of “anti-AGW” research, they were only looking to highlight some common errors and so explicitly selected a handful (38) of papers which had attracted mainstream attention. Even among them they don’t (in the free-available version) establish that all 38 were flawed, they only look at the kind of flaws common amongst their chosen selection.

I personally don’t doubt the raw facts of their assessment but I also suspect a similar cross-section of flaws and fallacies would be found in any subset of research papers (especially a sub-set selected for that purpose), including those supporting AGW ideas. I don’t think they’ve proven anything about “anti-AGW” research in general and the nature and presentation of this actually risks falling foul of some of the same issues they’re accusing it of in the first place (hence the linked article in the first place).

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5
 
Cigar said:
Yeap, that light at the end of the tunnel isn't a Train ... enjoy your walk.
Click to expand...


[h=1]Dr. Judith Curry Explains The Reality Of Bad Climate Science And Bad Politics[/h]Guest essay by Larry Hamlin Dr. Judith Curry conducted an interview with YouTube which was published on August 9, 2017 where she clearly lays out the many flaws and failures of “consensus” climate science and how this highly politicalized scheme tremendously misleads policy makers regarding the need for government directed climate actions. Regarding the role…

August 11, 2017 in 97% consensus.
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=1]Dr. Judith Curry Explains The Reality Of Bad Climate Science And Bad Politics[/h]Guest essay by Larry Hamlin Dr. Judith Curry conducted an interview with YouTube which was published on August 9, 2017 where she clearly lays out the many flaws and failures of “consensus” climate science and how this highly politicalized scheme tremendously misleads policy makers regarding the need for government directed climate actions. Regarding the role…

August 11, 2017 in 97% consensus.
Click to expand...

Curry has been pretty much debunked. She might as well write a paper on How climate denial has upped my stock portfolio.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Peer-reviewed papers that contradicted manmade global warming have been found flawed in a new review.
Click to expand...
No surprise there.

We should note that replication is an issue across all the sciences and all positions, though. I'm sure there are a few flawed papers which accept AGW.
 
Benestad’s program found that none of the papers had results that were replicable, at least not with generally accepted science.
Click to expand...

Generally accepted science. That's a strange phrase to use if you're sure the facts are on your side.
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=1]Dr. Judith Curry Explains The Reality Of Bad Climate Science And Bad Politics[/h]Guest essay by Larry Hamlin Dr. Judith Curry conducted an interview with YouTube which was published on August 9, 2017 where she clearly lays out the many flaws and failures of “consensus” climate science and how this highly politicalized scheme tremendously misleads policy makers regarding the need for government directed climate actions. Regarding the role…

August 11, 2017 in 97% consensus.
Click to expand...

Good video.

I like her streetlight analogy.
 
Visbek said:
No surprise there.

We should note that replication is an issue across all the sciences and all positions, though. I'm sure there are a few flawed papers which accept AGW.
Click to expand...

Exactly, that is the whole point of meta-studies.
 
blueliner7 said:
Generally accepted science. That's a strange phrase to use if you're sure the facts are on your side.
Click to expand...
That’s probably because it was a phrase used by a journalist and not by a scientist. The statement wasn’t even an accurate reflection of what the study being reported actually did.
 
HonestJoe said:
That’s probably because it was a phrase used by a journalist and not by a scientist. The statement wasn’t even an accurate reflection of what the study being reported actually did.
Click to expand...

It makes no difference, the journalist shouldn't have used that phrase but it was used.
 
Parrish said:
Curry has been pretty much debunked. She might as well write a paper on How climate denial has upped my stock portfolio.
Click to expand...

That is a fully uninformed comment. Almost in the "know-nothing" category.
 
blueliner7 said:
It makes no difference, the journalist shouldn't have used that phrase but it was used.
Click to expand...
There’s a long list of things the journalist shouldn’t have done and while using that phrase could be on the list, it isn’t going to be near the top. My point was that it was that the “sure the facts are on your side” element isn’t relevant since the journalist was just reporting about a published paper (albeit poorly) rather than clearly taking any side (not that the concept of “sides” in this should be used anyway). :cool:
 
HonestJoe said:
There’s a long list of things the journalist shouldn’t have done and while using that phrase could be on the list, it isn’t going to be near the top. My point was that it was that the “sure the facts are on your side” element isn’t relevant since the journalist was just reporting about a published paper (albeit poorly) rather than clearly taking any side (not that the concept of “sides” in this should be used anyway). :cool:
Click to expand...

I see this as the journalist taking a side and that's the problem, too much politics involved in this.
 
blueliner7 said:
I see this as the journalist taking a side and that's the problem, too much politics involved in this.
Click to expand...
If that’s her taking a side I don’t want to be on her side. :)
 
Visbek said:
No surprise there.

We should note that replication is an issue across all the sciences and all positions, though. I'm sure there are a few flawed papers which accept AGW.
Click to expand...


  • Check out a rough draft of the song “Replication Crisis” — a sabbatical side project. (Open Science Framework)
  • “The real problem is reproducibility.” Our co-founder Ivan Oransky chats with Perry Wilson, aka Methods Man, MD. (MedPage Today)
  • “Many apparent replication failures may thus reflect faulty judgment based on significance thresholds rather than a crisis of unreplicable research.” A new version of a preprint explores the p-value’s role in the replication crisis. (PeerJ Preprints)
 
Parrish said:
Curry has been pretty much debunked. She might as well write a paper on How climate denial has upped my stock portfolio.
Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:
[h=1]Dr. Judith Curry Explains The Reality Of Bad Climate Science And Bad Politics[/h]Guest essay by Larry Hamlin Dr. Judith Curry conducted an interview with YouTube which was published on August 9, 2017 where she clearly lays out the many flaws and failures of “consensus” climate science and how this highly politicalized scheme tremendously misleads policy makers regarding the need for government directed climate actions. Regarding the role…

August 11, 2017 in 97% consensus.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Excellent article! :thumbs: I agree with her - but who would not? She is correct that politicalization of science has taken place, and that is wrong! It appears that money has now become the driving force instead of true science. As a result, more and more "everyday people on the street" are now skeptical about what they have been told in the past about climate change, since "facts" are being disregarded or replaced when they are proven to be incorrect. Is that normal in science?

I understand that climate may indeed be changing, but it has done so since time began, so much more research is needed to determine what part humans today may play in earth's future climate, IMO, but even with that, it's still basically guesswork, since no one can see the future.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Excellent article! :thumbs: I agree with her - but who would not? She is correct that politicalization of science has taken place, and that is wrong! It appears that money has now become the driving force instead of true science. As a result, more and more "everyday people on the street" are now skeptical about what they have been told in the past about climate change, since "facts" are being disregarded or replaced when they are proven to be incorrect. Is that normal in science?

I understand that climate may indeed be changing, but it has done so since time began, so much more research is needed to determine what part humans today may play in earth's future climate, IMO, but even with that, it's still basically guesswork, since no one can see the future.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

You've got it.:mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom