Posted on 03/15/2017 12:56:23 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
A new survey confirms climate change research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals is untainted by so-called publication bias.
If a study's conclusion, not the quality of its content, impacts whether or not it gets published, the partiality is referred to as "publication bias."
Some have claimed publication bias explains the dearth of studies challenging the man-made climate change consensus.
A new study by scientists at Lund University in Sweden suggests the consensus -- that global warming is happening, and happening as a result of greenhouse emissions -- is based on a sober analysis and reporting of the facts, not collusion or bias.
"Our study is a very large review of the publication record within climate change," Johan Hollander, a biologist at Lund, said in a news release.
Researchers say climate change skepticism is exaggerated by politicians and polemicists, but not reflected within the scientific community.
"It is a major problem if politicians and other decision-makers don't trust science, or don't understand how scientists communicate their results," Hollander said. "This can lead to important decisions not being taken, or being given lower priority."
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
ROTFL. Okay.
fits right in with the ozone hole disaster, the light bulbs are killing us movement(now they contain mercury), and most other bs man spews..
The methods the client scientists are using simply can’t lead to conclusive proof, period.
Computer models are hypothesis-generating exercises, they are not science.
Good to know...
Let’s see their study on Global Musliming.
In related news, a new study by MSNBC, CNN and CBS has concluded that the lamestream media is not biased against President Trump.
A study done with its own bias already built in. What would you expect its findings to report?
So the fraudsters are self-exonerating! Grade A Awesome!
Sounds a lot like CNNABCCBSNBCWaPo etc when they assure us that there is no leftist bias in the mainstream media.
Researchers:
If you author a paper that counters the AGW “consensus” you will be shunned and shamed.
If you apply for a grant for any research that might not support the AGW “consensus” that grant request will not be approved.
That just proves that THAT study is BIASED!
In other words, he has a built in bias toward the AGW theory be taken seriously enough. These people are idiots or dishonest. Its disgusting they are paid to be scientists.
Just how many studies focus on "the effect of global warming on ______", where the blank is some process contained only in a fraction of the Earth as if the climate was uniform in that area except for some projected average of temperature for the whole Earth? How can one with an ounce of intelligence look at such studies with a straight face much less publish them in a scientific journal?
Got it, the con men pushing the myth claim they are not con man but actually honest and objective.
What else would you expect con men to say? Really think they are going to say “Yes, we biased and censor inconvenient facts that challenge our pipeline to endless amounts of Government research funds?”
Larry Elders referred us to The Great Global Warming Swindle/ YouTube. My husband chortled. As a geochemist, he has NEVER bought into Global Warming. It is a terrific documentary/ will give you all the fodder you ever needed to argue the Truth.
these are the exact same peer review publications that were printing computer generated gibberish (literally) for YEARS with no questions.
just because it is published in a snooty ivory tower magazine does not make it true.
Delusion runs deep
In fact, the study itself shows bias, and admits that the climate change literature shows bias. It shows that the bias was far more widespread before Climategate. [Another "Big Surprise."] It shows there is publication bias in both the conclusions and in the abstract of articles both before and after Climategate, with non-significant results virtually never highlighted in the abstract or conclusions, [BIG Surprise] even when those results were the most significant finding of a paper.
In other words, the alarmist parts most likely to be used by politicians, news organizations (like UPI), and the lay scientific press did INDEED show publication bias, even when the actual results in the study itself did not.
Ironically, the study also shows that the "bias study" itself suffers from publication bias -- of EXACTLY the most egregious bias noted in the "bias study," since its abstract essentially vindicates all of climate science, whereas the study itself focuses on an extremely narrow set of scientific questions [read on.]
Equally ironically, the UPI article falls victim to the very same bias the study admits that climate journals display: the sensationalized abstract led UPI to conclusions that the "bias study" does not support.
But here is the money quote, buried two paragraphs into the paper, and not present in the abstract at all:
we sampled articles from the body of literature that explores the effects of climate change on marine organisms.
In other words, the study is limited to: 1) marine organisms 2) environments where some evidence of climate change is already present.
It does not cover the biggest areas of contention in this debate at all: 1) That climate change is a global phenomenon 2) caused by human beings because of 3) the emission of CO2 by human processes.
So, it focused on a very narrow area of research, actually did find evidence of bias in some elements of the published studies and verified they were worse before people started more closely examining the peer review process in climatology that resulted directly from self-admitted bias in the Climategate emails.
Not quite what UPI says, though, is it?
Kind of like that TV commercial where the New York Times goes through all of the fake news and then flashes their title, as if to say they are the only news service that is not fake. But leave the impression that they are the source of all of the fake news.
Pure bullcrap.
It's a problem if the MSM lies too. #FakeNews.
Global Warming Skeptics Question Authority
Princeton Professor Denies Global Warming Theory Jan. 12, 2009
Princeton Physics Professor Discredits Anthropogenic Climate Change Theory Dec. 21, 2016
German scientists reject man-made global warming
Real Scientist Uncover Serious Flaw In Global Warming Data
Physicist Howard Hayden's one-letter disproof of global warming claims [pre-Climategate]
'Consensus' On Man-Made Global Warming Collapses in 2008
Perth electrical engineer's discovery will change climate change debate October 04, 2015
Top Physicist Freeman Dyson: Obama 'Took the Wrong Side' on Climate Change October 14, 2015
Global Warming Petition Project Scientists who reject AGW
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs
Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit 'Irrational' * 'Based On Nonsense' * 'Leading us down a false path' November 19, 2015
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.