Skip to content

Learning from mistakes in climate research

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Learning from mistakes in climate research. / Benestad, Rasmus E.; Nuccitelli, Dana; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Hayhoe, Katharine; Hygen, Hans Olav; van Dorland, Rob; Cook, John.

In: Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Vol. 126, No. 3-4, 11.2016, p. 699–703.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Benestad, RE, Nuccitelli, D, Lewandowsky, S, Hayhoe, K, Hygen, HO, van Dorland, R & Cook, J 2016, 'Learning from mistakes in climate research', Theoretical and Applied Climatology, vol. 126, no. 3-4, pp. 699–703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

APA

Benestad, R. E., Nuccitelli, D., Lewandowsky, S., Hayhoe, K., Hygen, H. O., van Dorland, R., & Cook, J. (2016). Learning from mistakes in climate research. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 126(3-4), 699–703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

Vancouver

Benestad RE, Nuccitelli D, Lewandowsky S, Hayhoe K, Hygen HO, van Dorland R et al. Learning from mistakes in climate research. Theoretical and Applied Climatology. 2016 Nov;126(3-4):699–703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

Author

Benestad, Rasmus E. ; Nuccitelli, Dana ; Lewandowsky, Stephan ; Hayhoe, Katharine ; Hygen, Hans Olav ; van Dorland, Rob ; Cook, John. / Learning from mistakes in climate research. In: Theoretical and Applied Climatology. 2016 ; Vol. 126, No. 3-4. pp. 699–703.

Bibtex

@article{9f6395264fc945aba3572695831bee9e,
title = "Learning from mistakes in climate research",
abstract = "Among papers stating a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), 97 {\%} endorse AGW. What is happening with the 2 {\%} 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 can be resolved, and we can learn 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 not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup. Other typical weaknesses include false 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.",
author = "Benestad, {Rasmus E.} and Dana Nuccitelli and Stephan Lewandowsky and Katharine Hayhoe and Hygen, {Hans Olav} and {van Dorland}, Rob and John Cook",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5",
language = "English",
volume = "126",
pages = "699–703",
journal = "Theoretical and Applied Climatology",
issn = "0177-798X",
publisher = "Springer Vienna",
number = "3-4",

}

RIS - suitable for import to EndNote

TY - JOUR

T1 - Learning from mistakes in climate research

AU - Benestad, Rasmus E.

AU - Nuccitelli, Dana

AU - Lewandowsky, Stephan

AU - Hayhoe, Katharine

AU - Hygen, Hans Olav

AU - van Dorland, Rob

AU - Cook, John

PY - 2016/11

Y1 - 2016/11

N2 - Among papers stating a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), 97 % endorse AGW. What is happening with the 2 % 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 can be resolved, and we can learn 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 not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup. Other typical weaknesses include false 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.

AB - Among papers stating a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), 97 % endorse AGW. What is happening with the 2 % 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 can be resolved, and we can learn 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 not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup. Other typical weaknesses include false 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84939601082&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

DO - 10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84939601082

VL - 126

SP - 699

EP - 703

JO - Theoretical and Applied Climatology

JF - Theoretical and Applied Climatology

SN - 0177-798X

IS - 3-4

ER -