Those 3% Of Scientific Studies Claiming That Deny Climate Change Are All Proven To Be Flawed
It’s increasingly hard to deny climate change nowadays. With hurricane Harvey hitting Texas and with hurricane Irma underway, said to hit Florida in the next following days -two storms that are said to be once in 1000 years – it’s hard to defend the position of denial. This is without mentioning the many wildfires engulfing the West Coast at the moment, as well as other places. And this is only the United States. Europe was also battling with some of the largest wildfires in its history, as well as flooding, hail storms and severe droughts. Asia is no different.
Anyway, most scientists agree about the extremely dangerous predicament we’re in. In fact, 97% of them agree that climate change is man made and it’s happening right before our eyes. But, as it turns out, the remainder 3% of scientific papers on the subject have reached the opposite conclusion.
These studies that deny climate change state that it’s either not real, not harmful, or not man-made. They go even a step further, claiming that they are some sort of mavericks in the scientific community, like Gallielo who stood up against the common ways of thinking back then.
But as it turns out, a new review published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology, these ‘maverick’ papers were peer reviewed, meaning that other scientists tried to replicate their methodology, and all of them were shown to have some flaws. Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, looked up 38 such papers that denied climate change.
“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,” Hayhoe wrote in a Facebook post.
Rasmus Benestad, a co-author and atmospheric scientist at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, built a program to test out the findings in these studies, and none of them had a replicable result. This means that they had cherry-picked results, ignoring the context and records, while others had some variables added in so as to move away from the idea of climate change and man-made global warming.
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.
To answer the question as to why these scientists and the people backing them up favor these results, Hayhoe wrote:
“It’s a lot easier for someone to claim they’ve been suppressed than to admit that maybe they can’t find the scientific evidence to support their political ideology… They weren’t suppressed. They’re out there, where anyone can find them.