A group of researchers set themselves to the task of determining why, although nearly all scientific studies confirm that climate change is indeed happening and that human activity is the prime driver of that change, there continue to be studies
purporting to demonstrate the opposite.
Published last week in the journal Theoretical and Applied Climatology, the study examined 38 recent examples of contrarian climate research — published research that takes a position on anthropogenic climate change but doesn’t attribute it to human activity — and tried to replicate the results of those studies. 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.
Unfortunately, the reviewers found the contrarian results weren't the result of more accurate science or new considerations that more mainstream researchers hadn't thought to consider, but were the result of easily identifiable errors:
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.
“However, for the 6,000 years’ worth of earlier data they threw out, their model couldn’t reproduce the temperature changes,” Nuccitelli wrote. “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.”
Rather than ill intent, the reviewers suggest that the errors may be the result of more innocent factors.
Many authors of the contrarian studies were relatively new to climate science, and therefore may have been unaware of important context or data. Many of the papers were also published in journals with audiences that don’t necessarily seek out climate science, and therefore peer review might have been lacking.
Blast from the Past. At Daily Kos on this date in 2012—Little brother of ex-president who must not be named says President Obama needs a spanking:
Jeb plans to continue the RNC theme of making shit up—or, as the Very Serious Journalists at the Associated Press call it, taking "factual shortcuts"—by telling us that Dubya is "a person of courage and integrity and honor, and we need people like that in public life." Which is why the former president we're not supposed to talk about will be appearing at the convention so his party can celebrate all that courage and integrity of his. Except that he won't be so shut up, nuh-uh and Obama sucks.
Jeb is a sensitive fellow and all about integrity, which is why he said it was "wrong" of anyone "to suggest that Paul Ryan is not completely truthful when he’s the only guy in Washington, D.C. that’s actually put out a comprehensive plan with a budget attached to it." Jeb then clutched his pearls and reclined on his fainting couch for a spell.
That's why delicate flower Jeb will be setting the record straight on what a swell guy his worst-president-in-history brother is and why the current president is so naughty for saying otherwise. That's just how he was raised:
“When I was growing up, we were spanked when that happened.” |
Nothing says integrity and honor like suggesting the president of the United States deserves a spanking.
Tweet of the Day
Monday through Friday you can catch the Kagro in the Morning Show 9 AM ET by dropping in
here, or you can download the Stitcher app (found in the app stores or at Stitcher.com), and find a live stream there, by searching for "Netroots Radio."
High Impact Posts • This Week's High Impact Posts
Top Comments • The Evening Blues