Too Much Noise? How Misleading Data Warps Climate Debate

zzebowa Says:

Jul 23, 2010 - They have had the occasional public debate with sceptics, and have lost badly. They know they are lying and hope the public is stupid enough to believe them. Thats why they appeal direct to the public.

allgoo19 Says:

Jul 23, 2010 - "They know they are lying and hope.."I'm not sure what you mean by "they".If you mean anti-clim-change, that's what I'm talking about. Explaining to the public directly will fail and clim-change group only will do the opponent a favor.

Prontest Says:

Oct 7, 2010 - yeah its better lol more than i think 11-15 is good for a trend because its longer than the suns cycle but even longer time periods are better. For example since the industrial revolution or the thousands of years of temperature records from ice cores

henkvanderlaak Says:

Nov 24, 2010 - Eh..... wasn't that Gore fellow (who had no scientific training *at all*) the one that started this popularity contest in the first place? As soon as a US politician starts getting involved, I can smell that somewhere, somehow, big business is trying to shove another one up our asses.Schneider had his whole career riding on catastrophist messaging. In the past, he was amongst the ones warning us for a new ice age. Not very good for your credibility. He won't be missed by me.

allgoo19 Says:

Nov 24, 2010 - "wasn't that Gore fellow .."You maybe right on one accpunt & wrong on the other.Al Gore may not have scientific training but he has many backer in the field,Al Gore might have been wrong to take that first step not knowing how the opposite side will counter act, which is far easier to understand and more comforting.He probably had good intention to begin. How much he'll be (even if)making out of this compare to Billions of profit a year oil companies make?

SPACKlick Says:

Dec 13, 2010 - It's not going to settle the scientific debate, they have places forthat, but it might fix the problem by convincing the public to stop risking the climate for long enough for scientists to work out how to fix it.

allgoo19 Says:

Dec 14, 2010 - "it might fix the problem by convincing the public to stop risking .."I guess you haven't paid attention to this matter and how the public opnion is moving.Anti climate change group is gaining the ground.

Desertphile Says:

Dec 17, 2010 - The score so far: still 97.6% consensus among climate scientists that humans caused global climate change. If the reality-deniers have evidence that refutes the facts, they should publish it in refereed peer-reviewed science journals..... not in blogs and not on FOX "News."

quidproquo2004 Says:

Jan 12, 2011 - It's about informing the public. Who do you think is more popular (known by more people): Glenn Beck and Bill O or Stephen Schneider?

allgoo19 Says:

Jan 13, 2011 - "It's about informing the public. Who do you think is more popular (known by more people): Glenn Beck and Bill O or Stephen Schneider?"I'm not so sure what you are trying to say.Beck & O'Reilly are more informative than Schneider?

quidproquo2004 Says:

Jan 13, 2011 - No, no, no, no -- perish the thought. What I inferred from your original remark was that it was a waste of time for scientists like Schneider to speak with the public simply because they are not educated in science. The point of my comment was that, for exactly this reason, he MUST speak with the public if there is to be any hope of combating the propaganda of many conservative blogs, radio shows, and television personalities.

allgoo19 Says:

Jan 13, 2011 - "No, no, no, no -- perish .."Then you haven't paid attention to the way public opinion is moving. Anti climate change is ganing the ground in US and starting to gain it even outside the US."Do something, anything." from desperation without thinking the what follows, you are just asking a big trouble. A battle can't be won without a smart strategy.

quidproquo2004 Says:

Jan 13, 2011 - Huh? When did I indicate otherwise. Sorry, but I don't think we're communicating in the same language.

allgoo19 Says:

Jan 13, 2011 - "When did I indicate otherwise. Sorry, but I don't think we're communicating in the same language."Make your point then.

thesparitan Says:

Mar 3, 2011 - The earth has been cooling for the last ten years, this so called scientist is a moron.  Global warming is dead we need to stop the coming global cooling. So now we need to actually put out more CO2 to stop the next ice age.

brendanmcwilliams Says:

Apr 28, 2011 - Actually, global cooling and the Coming Ice age was the predominant theory during the 1970s. For those that are educated, the graph this guy is using is cherry picked, just as he was complaining about right wingers doing.The little Ice age ended right around the beginning of the graph, at 1870. It has heated and the glaciers receded since that time period, except from 1940 to 1970, which caused the global cooling/ ice age scare.

brendanmcwilliams Says:

Apr 28, 2011 - wikipedia*.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850So far, all speculation of charts showing average temperatures back as far as 200 AD or earlier are based on the global warming models rather than actual data.A big joke among the educated and intelligent folks that like science is that, to make the global warming theory work, they had to switch from using tree rings to gauge temperature to thermometers attached to trees.

brendanmcwilliams Says:

Apr 28, 2011 - Of course changing the technique of measuring anything half way through the experiment is at best, bad science, and at worst, manipulative techniques to prove what you want to.When called on this scam, their laughable response was that it was more accurate than tree rings. This, of course, is the point. The fact that when they switched measuring techniques happened to coincide with the jump of .8 degrees in world temperature (it is supposedly 1 degree higher at this point) was the point.

happinesson Says:

Dec 5, 2011 - a moment of silence makes a lot sense!

Researchrules Says:

Dec 31, 2011 - Such a moron. Emotional appeal -4, Actual logic 0. Epic fail of a moron.

Researchrules Says:

Dec 31, 2011 - This "scientist" says nothing at all. CO2 levels have been rising since the beginning of the century. Such a PHD moron. It is like saying: Have you been making money since you've been sick? You then have a correlation between your rising credit card balance and your time spent in hospital beds.That is GW "science".

marsCubed Says:

Dec 31, 2011 - Recently, Skeptic scientists organized the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study.Funding was even from oil lobby conservatives.Peer reviewed, published on the web for any1 to see.They used more data than IPCC & different methods.Skeptics questions asked & answered by skeptical scientists themselves.Their conclusion was that IPCC was correct & Climate warming is real.Many denial sites not updating/gone. Even oil lobby stooges don't want to be sued .deniers = epic fail.

Researchrules Says:

Jan 1, 2012 - Well, peer review IS NOT scientific audit. You just can not equate peer review with audit. Audit implies objectivity, tests to determine any material distortion in the process and INDEPENDENCE. How can any of your peer reviewers apply for the independent criteria. All peer reviewers have scientific papers of their own which need a H quotient upgrade.

Researchrules Says:

Jan 1, 2012 - You seem to lack a basic grasp of the academic process. If your bibliography comes from ISI publications your research is more likely to be accepted at a conference.These conferences simply ask you to upload a document without your name and university, ALONG with the full document.

Researchrules Says:

Jan 1, 2012 - Also, climate is not a temperature record. Climate = humidity + pressure + temperature.