A team of seven climate scientists and meteorologists decided to give climate contrarians the benefit of the doubt, picked half of their more popular studies, and tried to redo them. (The hallmark of a good scientific paper is that it’s reproducible, meaning another scientist can do the same experiment and get the same or similar results.) What happened? Beyond being unable to replicate most of the results, the team discovered major flaws in the papers.
. Many papers left out essential data
. Some papers even ignored basic physics
. The deniers do not agree on an alternative theory.
In one example ….
In one example the authors of a 2011 paper tried to show the lunar and solar cycle are responsible for climate change, but they ignored 6,000 years’ worth of data that didn’t jibe with their idea. … When we tried to reproduce their model of the lunar and solar influence on the climate, we found that the model only simulated their temperature data reasonably accurately for the 4,000-year period they considered. However, for the 6,000 years’ worth of earlier data they threw out, their model couldn’t reproduce the temperature changes. The authors argued that their model could be used to forecast future climate changes, but there’s no reason to trust a model forecast if it can’t accurately reproduce the past. That 2011 study wasn’t alone. Cherry-picking or downright manipulating data to get a desired result of “no evidence for human-caused climate change” was the most common flaw among the climate denier papers examined by the team.
Business Insider: Kelly Dickerson: 10 Sep 2015
Key Words: Denial, Confusionists