From The Guardian
Those who reject the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming often invoke Galileo as an example of when the scientific minority overturned the majority view. In reality, climate contrarians have almost nothing in common with Galileo, whose conclusions were based on empirical scientific evidence, supported by many scientific contemporaries, and persecuted by the religious-political establishment. Nevertheless, there's a slim chance that the 2–3% minority is correct and the 97% climate consensus is wrong.
To evaluate that possibility, a new paper published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology examines a selection of contrarian climate science research and attempts to replicate their results.
Alas the results weren't good for that 3%...
Cherry picking was the most common characteristic they shared. We found that many contrarian research papers omitted important contextual information or ignored key data that did not fit the research conclusions.
The article also notes,
..there is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming. Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that's overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other. The one thing they seem to have in common is methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by BK on Saturday August 29 2015, @04:49AM
Yes, that is the one thing that the 97% and the 3% seem to have in common. It must be something in how scientists are trained...
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday August 29 2015, @07:19AM
Yes, that is the one thing that the 97% and the 3% seem to have in common.
So, let me get this straight: you are saying you did not read the Fine Artlcle? There is no shame in this. It is a good death. A death of a soylentil who had done fine works. We are making better worlds. Better worlds for Oil companies. All of them. Better worlds. ("Where are you, little soylentil?" ) [For the Reference Challenged: opening scene of the Movie, "Serenity", Joss Whedon, director.]
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2015, @08:13AM
if you were a tribesperson not using any technology derived from the petroleum industry, then you might have a point
the very fact that you're posting your drivel on the internet implies you have no idea how disgustingly large your carbon footprint is compared to everyone else on earth
your contribution to the demand for non-renewable energy is causing climate change... how does that make you feel?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday August 29 2015, @08:24AM
I happen to have a bone through my nose, live completely off the grid, use only biomechanical transportation, and fart in your general direction (which by the way, contains a rather lot of methane, which is a potent biofuel!). Internet has a carbon footprint? Do you even know what a footprint is? I am posting this in text, I am not loading cute videos of kittens or sea birds coated in crude oil! And besides, I don't seem to recall having called for renewable energy. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else? I certainly am confusing you.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by BK on Saturday August 29 2015, @03:05PM
No, I am merely pointing out that there have been numerous stories of bad or questionable scientific practice among the 97% as well. We've even covered some of those here.
The fact is that before 1950 (or even, maybe 1980) the data is bad (for lots of reasons). Everyone wants the data to be usable to " prove" their model. So they message and tweak and cherry pick and supplement and fit lines and whatnot. Some even extend this into modern datasets. It's all bad science.
...but you HAVE heard of me.