The 38 major papers against anthropogenic climate-change got double-checked. Not pretty.

[DetlefK]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/08/26/3695477/climate-scientists-cant-recreate-bad-science/

The studies weren’t selected randomly — according to lead author Rasmus Benestad, the studies selected were highly visible contrarian studies that had all arrived at a different conclusion than consensus climate studies. The question the researchers wanted to know was — why?

...

The most common mistake shared by the contrarian studies was cherry picking, in which studies ignored data or contextual information that did not support the study’s ultimate conclusions. In a piece for the Guardian, study co-author Dana Nuccitelli cited one particular contrarian study that supported the idea that moon and solar cycles affect the Earth’s climate. When the group tried to replicate that study’s findings for the paper, they found that the study’s model only worked for the particular 4,000-year cycle that the study looked at.

...

The researchers also found that a number of the contrarian studies simply ignored the laws of physics. For example, in 2007 and 2010 papers, Ferenc Miskolczi argued that the greenhouse effect had become saturated, a theory that had been disproved in the early 1900s.

...

In other cases, the authors found, researchers would include extra parameters not based in the laws of physics to make a model fit their conclusion.

...

The authors note that these errors aren’t necessarily only found in contrarian papers, and they aren’t necessarily malicious.

...

The mistakes also seemed to be particularly present in contrarian studies, Nuccitelli wrote.

----------------------------------

And here's the paper: "Learning from mistakes in climate research"
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

[PJMcK]

1. This is how science works

The core concept underlying the discipline of science is repeatability. When a conclusion is reached based upon the observations of a set of data, other scientists should be able to review the claims and come to similar determinations. That's the idea behind peer-review analysis. When extraordinary claims are made that cannot be verified, the conclusions or claims must be rejected.

It's not surprising that the 38 papers cited contain the flaws observed in the analysis since they were written subjectively with obvious predetermined results. Thanks for posting this, DetlefK.

[SwissTony]

2. Thanks, DetlefK. Excellent post.

John Cook, one of the authors of this paper, offers an excellent course on Climate Denial. it's a self-paced edX course (so you do it for FREE) and its full title is: Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x-0

Edited because I can't spell four shirt!!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

3. Thank you for posting! People citing those are cherry-picking the cherry-picking. nt

[turbinetree]

4. When looking at the references...........................

it was not shocking, its the same organizations that are running around saying the sky is red and that 2+2 = 5 dammit, and so, their credibility has always been skewed.
Just think that some of these institutions and think tanks are nothing more than conduits to keep the same BS in play---------and they are dictating the climate event, and destroying the planet based on that falsehood of misrepresented physics


Good piece-------------- thanks


Honk------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016

[Gothmog]

5. Thanks for posting

[Wounded Bear]

6. Thanks for posting...

Downloaded for later.