Search This Blog

Follow by Email

The studies cited as disproving global warming were studied and found to be seriously lacking

Republicans and Teabaggers cite a few off-the-wall studies in their attempts to prove global climate change is not happening.  The 38 most prominent studies were reviewed and found to be seriously lacking in facts and in scientific rigor.

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

 Here's a link to the paper.

No comments:

Post a Comment