Consensus on Climate Change Peer Review August 2019 Cook

Abstract

Amid papers stating a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), 97 % endorse AGW. What is happening with the two % of papers that reject AGW? We examine a selection of papers rejecting AGW. An analytical tool has been developed to replicate and test the results and methods used in these studies; our replication reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases. Thus, real-life scientific disputes in some cases tin exist resolved, and we tin acquire from mistakes. A common denominator seems to be missing contextual information or ignoring information that does not fit the conclusions, be it other relevant work or related geophysical data. In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are non universally valid but rather are an antiquity of a detail experimental setup. Other typical weaknesses include imitation dichotomies, inappropriate statistical methods, or basing conclusions on misconceived or incomplete physics. We also argue that science is never settled and that both mainstream and contrarian papers must be subject to sustained scrutiny. The merit of replication is highlighted and we discuss how the quality of the scientific literature may benefit from replication.

Introduction

In that location is a strong caste of agreement in climate sciences on the question regarding anthropogenic climate change. Anderegg et al. (2010) suggested that 97–98 % of the actively publishing climate researchers support the main conclusions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC) (IPCC 2007). Cook et al. (2013) reviewed about 12,000 climate abstracts and received 1200 self-ratings from the authors of climate science publications. Based on both the abstracts and the self-ratings, they found a 97 % consensus in the relevant peer-reviewed climate science literature on humans causing global warming. This consensus was as well noted past Oreskes (2004), yet a notable proportion of Americans doubt the anthropogenic cause behind the contempo climatic change (Leiserowitz et al. 2013; Doran and Zimmerman 2009). There is a lack of public sensation about the level of scientific agreement underpinning the view on anthropogenic global warming. Doran and Zimmerman (2009) reported that 52 % of Americans think that about climate scientists agree that the Earth has been warming in recent years, and 47 % think that climate scientists agree that human activities are a major cause of that warming. Theissen (2011) argued that many Us undergraduate students are dislocated by a number of myths concerning climatic change, propagated past blogs and media, and a similar "consensus gap" exists in other countries, for example Australia (Leviston et al. 2012; Lewandowsky et al. 2013).

This gap of perception tin can be traced in part to a small number of contrarian papers that accept appeared in the scientific literature and are frequently cited in the public soapbox disputing the causes of climate change (Rahmstorf 2012). The message from these has been picked up past the media, a number of organizations, and blogs and has been turned into videos. For instance, a claim that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is "saturated" past a Canadian organization called "Friends of Science" is supported by one contrarian paper (Miskolczi 2010). A handful of papers (Shaviv 2002; Svensmark 1998; Friis-Christensen and Lassen 1991; Marsh and Svensmark 2000) accept provided a basis for videos with titles such as "The Global Warming Swindle" and "The cloud mystery." These accept targeted the lay public, who have been left with the impression that greenhouse gases (GHGs) play a small-scale role in global warming and that the recent warming has been acquired past changes in the sun. In the USA, the "Nongovernmental International Console on Climate change" (NIPCC) report (Idso et al. 2009; NIPCC 2013), the "Scientific discipline & Environmental Policy Project" (SEPP), and the Heartland Constitute have played an active role in the public soapbox, providing a platform for the public dissemination of papers at variance with the notion of anthropogenic climate modify. In Kingdom of norway, there have been campaigns led by an organisation called "Klimarealistene" which dismisses the conclusions drawn by the IPCC. This Norwegian organization has fed the conclusions from contrarian papers into schools through leaflets sent to the headmasters (Newt and Wiik 2012), post-obit an example ready by the Heartland Institute. They have also used a popular website (world wide web.forskning.no) to promote such controversial papers targeting schools and the full general public.

Misrepresentation of the climate sciences is a concern, and Somerville and Hassol (2011) accept called for the badly needed voice of rational scientists in modern society. At that place have been attempts in the scientific literature to right some misconceptions, such as a myth regarding an alleged recent "slow-downward" in global warming, a so-called hiatus. Easterling and Wehner (2009) showed that natural variations give rise to reduced or fifty-fifty negative temperature trends over brief periods; however, this is due to stochastic fluctuations virtually an underlying warming trend (Foster and Rahmstorf 2011). Balmaseda et al. (2013) suggested that changes in the winds have resulted in a recent heat aggregating in the deep sea that has masked the surface warming and that the sea heat content shows a steady increase. Examples of setting the record straight include both scientific papers (Legras et al. 2010; Masuda et al. 2006) and blogs such equally Climate Dialogue (Vasileiadou 2013), SkepticalScience.com, and RealClimate.org (Rapley 2012).

The current situation for the climate sciences has been described every bit "a struggle about the truth of the state of climate" (Romm 2010), and a number of books even merits that climate science myths have been introduced to society in a distorted manner, causing more confusion than enlightenment (Oreskes and Conway 2008; Gelbspan 1997; Hoggan et al. 2009; Mooney 2006). Unjustified claims and harsh debates are not new (Sherwood 2011); history shows that they accept been part of the scientific discourse for a long time. There are few papers in the literature that provide comprehensive analyses of several contrarian papers, and hence, a pattern of similarities between these may go unnoticed. Writing collections of replications of past papers is not the norm, but it is hard to get published in journals with a prepare of expected formats or because of high likelihood that i reviewer does not like the implications or conclusions. Some journals do non even permit comments.

An interesting question is whether mistakes are random events or if a number of papers share common flaws of logic or methodology. We expect that scientific papers in general class networks by citing one some other, and information technology is interesting to enquire whether conclusions drawn in flawed papers are independent of each other or if errors propagate through further commendation. To address this question, we need to place errors through replicating previous piece of work, following the line from the original information source, via analysis, to the interpretation of the results and the last conclusions, testing methods and assumptions. The objective of this newspaper is to present an approach to documenting and learning from mistakes. Errors and mistakes are frequently considered to be an essential ingredient of the learning process (Bedford 2010; Bedford and Cook 2013), creating potential learning cloth. The supporting material (SM) contains a number of case studies with examples of scrutiny and replication, providing an in-depth analysis of each paper (Benestad 2014a). Accompanying open up-source software (too function of the SM) includes the source lawmaking for all of the analyses (Benestad 2014b, c). An of import point is that this software likewise is open up to scrutiny by other experts and, in the example of replication, represents the "hard facts" on which the SM and this newspaper are based.

Results

We review and summarize differences and mutual features of 38 contrarian papers that dispute anthropogenic global warming. We offset grouped the papers into five categories describing how their conclusions depend the belittling setup, statistics, mathematics, physics, and representation of previous results. Virtually papers barbarous into the the "analytical setup" category, and a common logical failure plant in these papers was either starting with false assumptions or executing an erroneous assay. Starting with false assumptions was common in the attribution studies reporting that astronomical forcings influence Earth's climate. Examples of an erroneous assay found in these papers included improper hypothesis testing and incorrect statistics.

A common feature across all categorieswas a neglect of contextual data, such as relevant literature or other evidence at variance with their conclusions. Several papers besides ignored relevant physical interdependencies and consistencies. There was also a typical pattern of insufficient model evaluation, where papers failed to compare models against independent values not used for model development (out-of-sample tests). Insufficient model evaluation is related to over-fitting, where a model involves plenty tunable parameters to provide a good fit regardless of the model skill. Another term for over-fitting is "bend fitting," and several such cases involved wavelets, multiple regression, or long-term persistence zip models for trend testing. More than stringent evaluation would propose that the results yielded past several papers on our list would fail in a more general context. Such evaluation should also include tests for self-consistency or applying the methods to constructed data for which we already know the respond.

False dichotomy was also a common theme, for case, when it is claimed that the sun is the cause of global warming, leaving no room for GHGs even though in reality the two forcings may coexist. In some cases, preprocessing of the data emphasized certain features, leading to logical fallacies. Other issues involved ignoring tests with negative outcomes ("cherry picking") or assuming untested presumed dependencies; in these cases, proper evaluation may reduce the adventure of such shortcomings. Misrepresentation of statistics leads to incorrect conclusions, and "contagion" by external factors caused the data to correspond aspects other than those under investigation. The failure to account for the actual degrees of freedom also resulted in incorrect estimation of the confidence interval.

I common factor of contrarian papers included speculations about cycles, and the papers reviewed hither reported a broad range of periodicities. Spectral methods tend to find cycles, whether they are real or non, and it is no surprise that a number of periodicities appear when carrying out such analyses. Several papers presented implausible or incomplete physics, and some studies claimed celestial influences only suffered from a lack of clear concrete reasoning: in item, papers claiming to written report climate dependence to the solar cycle length (SCL). Conclusions with weak physics footing must nevertheless be regarded as speculative.

Give-and-take and conclusions

Here, nosotros focus on a small-scale sample of papers that have fabricated a discernable marking on the public discourse well-nigh climate change; they were selectively picked for close-up study rather than randomly sampled for a statistical representation. Perhaps the most common problem with the cases examined here was missing contextual information ("the prosecutor's fallacy" (Wheelan 2013)), and there are several plausible explanations for why relevant information may exist neglected. The most obvious caption is that the authors were unaware of such facts. It takes experts to make proper assessments, equally information technology requires scientific skills, an appreciation of both context and theory, and hands-on experience with computer coding and data analysis. There is tacit knowledge, such as the limitation of spectral methods and over-fitting, which may not be appreciated by newcomers to the fields of climate science andclimatology. In some cases, the fail of relevant information may be linked to defending one's position, as seen in ane of the cases with a clear misrepresentation of another study (Benestad 2013). We besides note that several of these papers involved the same authors and that the different cases were not contained fifty-fifty if they involved different shortcomings. Some of the cases too implied interpretations that were incompatible with some of the other cases, such every bit pronounced externally induced geophysical cycles and a dominant function of long-term persistence (LTP); tiresome stochastic fluctuations associated with LTP make the detection of meaningful cycles from solar forcing difficult if they shape the ascendant grapheme in the geophysical record.

In that location were also a group of papers (Gerlich and Tscheuschner 2009; Lu 2013; Scafetta 2013) that were published in journals whose target topics were remote from climate research. Editors for these journals may not know of suitable reviewers and may assign reviewers who are not peers inside the aforementioned scientific field and who practice not have the background knowledge needed to carry out a proper review. The peer review process in itself is non perfect and does not guarantee veracity (Bohannon 2013). Information technology is well known that there take been some glitches in the peer review: a paper by Soon and Baliunas (2003) acquired the resignation of several editors from the journal Climate Research (Kinne 2003 ), and Wagner (Wagner et al. 2011) resigned from the editorship of Remote Sensing over the publication of a paper by Spencer and Braswell (2010). Copernicus Publications decided on 17 Jan 2014 to cease the publication of PRP to distance itself from malpractice in the review process that may explain some unusual papers (Benestad 2013; Scafetta 2013). The mutual denominators identified here and in the SM can provide some guidelines for futurity peer reviews.

The merit of replication, by reexamining old publications in order to assess their veracity, is obvious. Scientific discipline is never settled, and both the scientific consensus and alternative hypotheses should be field of study to ongoing questioning, especially in the presence of new evidence and insights. True and universal answers should, in principle, be replicated independently, especially if they have been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Open up-source code and data provide the verbal recipe that lead to conclusions, only a lack of openness and transparency may stand for one obstacle to resolving scientific disputes and progress, such as a refusal to share the code to test diverging conclusions (Le Page 2009). Indeed, open-source methods are not the current norm for published articles in the scientific journals, and data are oftentimes inaccessible due to commercial interests and political reasons.

Bedford (2010) argued that "agnotology" (the study of how and why nosotros do non know things) presents a potentially useful tool to explore topics where knowledge is or has been contested past unlike people. The term "agnotology" was coined by Proctor and Schiebinger (2008), who provided a collection of essays addressing the question "why we don't know what we don't know?" Their message was that ignorance is a effect of both cultural and political struggles as well as an absenteeism of knowledge. The counterpart to agnotology is epistemology, for which scientific discipline is an important ground. The scientific way of thinking is an ideal means for resolving questions well-nigh causality, providing valuable guidance when there are alien views on matters concerning physical relationships.

It is widely recognized that climate sciences take profound implications for society (IPCC 2007), just one concern is that modernistic enquiry is veering away from the scientific ideal of replication and transparency (Cartlidge 2013a; The Economist 2013). Unresolved disputes may contribute to confusion if one view is based on faulty analysis or logic (Theissen 2011; Rahmstorf 2012) and are especially unfortunate if the society has to make difficult choices depending on non-transparent knowledge, information, and data. Loftier-profile papers, results influencing conclusion making, and controversial propositions should be replicated, and openness is needed to avoid non-epistemic consensus and "group call back." It is of import that scrutiny and debate are sustained efforts and address both the scientific consensus and culling views supported by scientific evidence. It is besides of import that critiques and debates are conveyed by the scientific literature when past findings are challenged. The assessments made by the IPCC could highlight the merit of replication, confirmation, and falsification; however, critics argue that it has failed to correct myths about climate research (Pearce (2010). The bulletin from the IPCC assessment reports would be more robust if it also fabricated bachelor the source code and data from which its key figures and conclusions are derived. The demonstrations provided here in the SM may serve as an example (Pebesma 2012), and there are already existing examples where in that location is gratuitous access to climate data (Lawrimore et al. 2013; Cartlidge 2013b).

The method

The 38 papers selected for this study accept all contributed to the gap in perception on anthropogenic climate change between the general public and climate scientists. The sample was drawn based on expert opinion according to the criterion of beingness contrarian papers with loftier public visibility and with results that are not in understanding with the mainstream view. The sample was highly selective and meant for replication and the identification of errors rather beingness a representative statistical sample reflecting the volume of scientific literature. One objection to the selection of the cases here may be that they introduce an "disproportion" through imperfect sampling; however, the purpose was not to depict general conclusions nigh the unabridged body of scientific literature merely to acquire from mistakes. There may also be flawed papers agreeing with the mainstream view, but they have footling issue on the gap of perception betwixt the public perception and the scientific consensus.

The analysis was implemented in the R environment (R Development Core Squad 2004). This choice was motivated by the fact that R is free and runs on all common reckoner platforms, and has accessible online manuals and documentation. R is a scripting language with intuitive logic that provides the opportunity to create R packages (Pebesma 2012) with open-source reckoner code, user transmission pages, necessary data, and examples. All the results and demonstrations presented in this paper are available in the R parcel "replicationDemos" (version i.12) provided every bit supporting cloth (Benestad 2014b, c). In other words, it includes both the ingredients and the recipe for the analyses discussed here.

References

• Proctor R North., Schiebinger L (eds) (2008). Agnotology: the making and unmaking of ignorance. Stanford Academy Press, Stanford

• Anderegg WRL, Prall JW, Harold J, Schneider SH (2010) Practiced brownie in climate modify. PNAS 107:12107–12110

  Article  Google Scholar

• Balmaseda MA, Trenberth KE, and Källén Due east (2013) Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global body of water rut content. Geophys Res Lett. doi: 10.1002/grl.50382

• Bedford D (2010) Agnotology as a teaching tool: learning climate scientific discipline by studying misinformation. J Geogr 109:159–165

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Bedford D, Melt J (2013) Agnotology, scientific consensus, and the teaching and learning of climate change: a response to Legates, Soon and Briggs. Sci & Educ 22:2019–2030

  Article  Google Scholar

• Benestad RE (2013) Comment on 'Discussions on common errors in analyzing bounding main level accelerations, solar trends and global warming' past Scafetta (2013). Pattern Recogn Phys 1:91–92

  Article  Google Scholar

• Benestad R (2014a) Replication of a number of contrarian climate change studies. http://figshare.com/articles/Replication_of_a_number_of_contrarian_climate_change_studies/951971. Retrieved Aug 04, 2015 (GMT)

• Benestad R. (2014b) R-bundle for replication studies. http://figshare.com/articles/R_package_for_replication_studies/951973. Retrieved August 4, 2015 (GMT) (R-package for Windows)

• Benestad R. (2014c) R-package for replication studies. http://figshare.com/articles/R_package_for_replication_studies/951972. Retrieved August 4, 2015 (GMT) (R-package for Linux/Mac)

• Bohannon J (2013) Who'due south afraid of peer review? Science 342:threescore–65

  Article  Google Scholar

• Cartlidge Eastward. (2013a) Opening data upwardly to scrutiny. Phys Earth xiii

• Cartlidge Eastward (2013b) Opening information upward to scrutiny. Phys World 13

• NIPCC (2013) Climatic change reconsidered II: physical science. The Heartland Institute, Chicago

• IPCC (2007) Climate change: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change. Cambridge University Press, New York

• Romm J (2010) Climate of fear. Nature 464: 141. doi: 10.1038/464141a

• Cook J et al (2013) Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environ Res Lett 8:024024

  Article  Google Scholar

• Doran PT, Zimmerman MK (2009) Examining the scientific consensus on climatic change. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union xc:22–23

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Easterling DR, Wehner MF (2009) Is the climate warming or cooling? Geophys Res Lett 36:L08706

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Foster M, Rahmstorf South (2011) Global temperature evolution 1979–2010. Environ Res Lett 6:044022

  Article  Google Scholar

• Friis-Christensen East, Lassen K (1991) Length of the solar bike: an indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate. Science 254:698–700

  Article  Google Scholar

• Gelbspan R (1997) The estrus is on: the loftier stakes boxing over Globe's threatened climate. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Boston

• Gerlich G, Tscheuschner RD (2009) Falsification of the atmospheric CO₂ greenhouse effects within the frame of physics. Int J Mod Phys B 23:275–364

  Article  Google Scholar

• Hoggan J, Littlemore RD, and Ebrary I (2009) Climate cover-up: the cause to deny global warming. Greystone Books, Vancouver

• Idso C, Singer F (2009) Climate change reconsidered: 2009 report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climatic change (NIPCC). The Heartland Institute, Chicago

• Kinne O (2003) Climate research: an article unleashed worldwide storms. Clim Res 24:197–198

  Article  Google Scholar

• Lawrimore J, Rennie J, Thorne P (2013) Responding to the need for better global temperature information. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 94:61–62

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Le Page G (2009) Sceptical climate researcher won't divulge key programme. New Scientist. http://www.newscientist.com/commodity/dn18307-sceptical-climate-researcher-wont-divulge-cardinal-programme.html#.Uq1qQ6rj6ak. Accessed 8 Apr 2015

• Legras B, Mestre O, Bard Due east, Yiou P (2010) A critical expect at solar-climate relationships from long temperature series. Clim Past 6:745–758

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Leiserowitz A. et al (2013) Public support for climate and energy policies in Apr 2013. Yale University, Connecticut

• Leviston Z, Walker I, Morwinski S (2012) Your stance on climate alter might not be as mutual as yous recollect. Nat Clim Alter iii:334–337

  Article  Google Scholar

• Lewandowsky S, Gignac GE, Oberauer K (2013) The role of conspiracist ideation and worldviews in predicting rejection of science. PLoS Ane eight:e75637

  Article  Google Scholar

• Lu Q-B (2013) Catholic-ray-driven reaction and greenhouse event of halogenated molecules: culprits for atmospheric ozone depletion and global climate change. Int J Mod Phys B 27:1350073

  Article  Google Scholar

• Marsh ND, Svensmark H (2000) Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays. Phys Rev Lett 85:5004–5007

  Article  Google Scholar

• Masuda Chiliad, Asuka J, Yoshimura J, Kawamiya 1000 (2006) Critical comments on several skeptic views about global warming. J Jpn Sci 41:36–41

  Google Scholar

• Miskolczi F. (2010) The stable stationary value of the World'south global average atmospheric Planck-weighted greenhouse-gas optical thickness. Energ Environ 21: 243–263

• Mooney C (2006) The Republican war on science. Bones Books, New York

• Newt K, Wiik H (2012) Når akademikere villeder om klimaendringer. Utdanning nr. 15/2012

• Oreskes N (2004) The scientific consensus on climate alter. Science 306

• Oreskes N, Conway EM (2008) Challenging knowledge: how climate science became a victim of the Common cold War. In: Proctor R, Schiebinger 50 Agnotology: the making and unmaking of ignorance. Stanford University Press, Stanford

• Pearce F (2010) The climate files: the battle for the truth well-nigh global warming. Random Business firm, UK

• Pebesma Eastward, Nüst D, Bivand R (2012) The R software environment in reproducible geoscientific enquiry. EOS 93:163–164

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Rahmstorf S (2012) Is journalism declining on climate? Environ Res Lett 7:041003

  Article  Google Scholar

• Rapley C (2012) Climate science: time to raft up. Nature 488:583–585

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Scafetta N (2013) Word on common errors in analyzing ocean level accelerations, solar trends and global warming. Pattern Recogn Phys ane:37–57

  Article  Google Scholar

• Shaviv NJ (2002) Cosmic ray diffusion from the galactic screw artillery, iron meteorites, and a possible climatic connection. Phys Rev Lett 89:051102

  Article  Google Scholar

• Sherwood South (2011) Science controversies past and present. Phys Today 64:39–44

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Somerville RCJ, Hassol SJ (2011) Communicating the science of climate alter. Phys Today 64:48–53

  Article  Google Scholar

• Before long West, Baliunas Southward (2003) Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past grand years. Clim Res 23:89–110

  Article  Google Scholar

• Spencer RW, Braswell WD (2010) On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing. J Geophys Res 115:D16109

  Article  Google Scholar

• Svensmark H (1998) Influence of catholic rays on Earth'due south climate. Phys Rev Lett 81:5027–5030

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• R Development Core Team (2004) R: a language and environs for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org. Accessed 5 July 2015

• Theissen KM (2011) What do U.Southward. students know most climate change? EOS 92:477–478

  Article  Google Scholar

• The Economist (2013) How science goes wrong. http://world wide web.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-inquiry-has-inverse-globe-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong. Accessed 8 April 2015

• Vasileiadou E (2013) Concluding evaluation report of climate dialogue. http://www.climatedialogue.org/final-evaluation-study-of-climate-dialogue/. Accessed 8 Apr 2015

• Wagner West (2011) Taking responsibleness on publishing the controversial paper 'On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in Earth'southward radiant energy balance' by Spencer and Braswell, Remote Sens. 2011, 3(8), 1603–1613. Remote Sens iii: 2002–2004

• Wheelan CJ (2013) Naked statistics: stripping the dread from the information. W. West. Norton & Visitor, New York

Download references

Acknowledgments

Part of the textile presented here has was inspired past posts written for world wide web.RealClimate.org, only the paper has evolved over time based on input from comments in the review and word process, where several of the authors of the papers discussed hither have had their say. Nosotros are also grateful for valuable comments from Oskar Landgren and Øyvind Nordli.

Author information

Affiliations

1. The Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway

   Rasmus E. Benestad & Hans Olav Hygen

2. Skeptical Science, Brisbane, Australia

   Dana Nuccitelli & John Cook

3. University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

   Stephan Lewandowsky

4. University of Western Commonwealth of australia, Crawley, Australia

   Stephan Lewandowsky

5. Texas Tech Academy, Lubbock, TX, Us

   Katharine Hayhoe

6. The Majestic Netherlands Meteorological Found, De Bilt, The Netherlands

   Rob van Dorland

7. Global Change Plant, The Academy of Queensland, St. Lucia, Australia

   John Cook

8. Academy of Western Australia, Crawley, Commonwealth of australia

   John Cook

Respective author

Correspondence to Rasmus Due east. Benestad.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary fabric.

Rights and permissions

Open Admission This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Eatables Attribution four.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted apply, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you requite appropriate credit to the original writer(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

Virtually this article

Cite this commodity

Benestad, R.E., Nuccitelli, D., Lewandowsky, Due south. et al. Learning from mistakes in climate research. Theor Appl Climatol 126, 699–703 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

Download citation

• Received: 21 May 2014

• Accepted: 27 July 2015

• Published: xx August 2015

• Issue Date: November 2016

• DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

Keywords

• Climate Science
• Anthropogenic Climatic change
• Ocean Heat Content
• Anthropogenic Global Warming
• Scientific Dispute

magnessamer1958.blogspot.com

Source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

Share this post