Scientists Retest Studies That Contradict Climate Science

The scientific consensus behind man-made global warming is overwhelming: multiple studies have noted a 97 percent consensus among climate scientists that the Earth is warming and human activities are primarily responsible. Scientists are as sure that global warming is real — and driven by human activity — as they are that smoking cigarettes leads to lung cancer.
But what if all of those scientists are wrong? What if the tiny sliver of scientists that don’t believe global warming is happening, or that human activities are causing it — that two to three percent of climate contrarians — are right?
That’s the hypothetical question that a new study, authored by Rasmus Benestad, Dana Nuccitelli, Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland, and John Cook, sought to answer. 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. The question the researchers wanted to know was — why?
“Our selection suited this purpose as it would be harder to spot flaws in papers following the mainstream ideas. The chance of finding errors among the outliers is higher than from more mainstream papers,” Benestad wrote at RealClimate. “Our hypothesis was that the chosen contrarian paper was valid, and our approach was to try to falsify this hypothesis by repeating the work with a critical eye.”
It didn’t go well for the contrarian studies.
More here!

What will undoubtably become the biggest threat to world geopolitics is not even responded to, is beyond me.
TFS- no concerns?

Neil deGrasse Tyson: Politicians Who Don't Value Science Could Bring 'The End Of An Informed Democracy'


"If you gain 10 pounds this month, you don't say, "Repeal gravity!""

That seems to be a contradiction in terms -
"Anthropogenic" is by definition "caused by humans"
How can you take a position on "Anthropogenic climate change" but dismiss the "human activity" part?

Are they trying to say "Climate Change is real, but not necessarily caused by Humans"?
That's along the lines that I believe. It is certainly possible that human activity is exacerbating any changes - especially the more local the consideration. But aside from some major nuclear or other human-caused world-wide disaster, I don't think man can change the direction of natural, world-wide cycles.

I read it as: They held anthropogenic climate change studies (that did not find any connection) up to scientific scrutiny & found they failed in their research methodology or cherry picked only the data that supported their position.

How climate change deniers sound to normal people!

This is saying a group of scientist took the studies that found evidence that climate change is not caused by man. They preformed the tests and could not recreate the results. Thus falsifying the studies.

This has gotten to the point of people treating mans affect on the climate, like they treat evolution. How much evidence will it take to change their belief?

So very true at that- Same group of people I'm afraid.