SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the we-just-need-a-test-world-to-play-around-with dept.
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: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday August 29 2015, @07:51AM
Showing that the deniers have fudged the data does not mean that the true believers have not fudged it also.
OH, oH, Oh!!! This is soooo logically correct that it almost hurts my brain. It also is a fallacy. Showing the deniers have fudged data shows they are lying sacks of shit with ulterior motives. Yes, it does not mean that the Climate Change Theorists (we call them "scientists"; "true believers" seems inappropriate) did not also. Of course, equally, and maybe a bit more so, it does not suggest they did fudge the data. Citation needed?
I am starting to think we need a special mod category (yes, yes, I know, and I am against more categories in general): How about Oil Troll? We seem to have so many. And their logic is easily identifiable. Trolls. Oily Trolls. Trolls of Oil. Petroleum Trolls. Climate Denier Trolls.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Saturday August 29 2015, @08:24AM
I do not work for big oil, and I think it is quite likely that humans are changing the climate. Doubling the level of CO2 is going to have an effect.
However, the right way to tackle this is with science, not a 'green' religion.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2015, @02:45PM
And 97% of scientists agree with you.