Too Much Noise? How Misleading Data Warps Climate Debate

[Researchrules]

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".

[happinesson]

a moment of silence makes a lot sense!

[brendanmcwilliams]

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.

[brendanmcwilliams]

wikipedia*.org/wiki/Retreat_of­_glaciers_since_1850

So 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]

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.

[thesparitan]

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.

[Desertphile]

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."

[zzebowa]

But 25 or 30 years does validate the theory of GW? 

As for his attack on the media for 'giving these guys airimte' in a slightly snide voice, that sa giveaway.

[Prontest]

@zzebowa 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

[MindCBase]

foratv and pro-liberal agenda? unsuscribe that motherfucker.

[bimmjim]

Most adults in north America lack numeracy. They don't understand or believe in math. I try to explane to them how math makes airplanes fly and then point out to them that when they trust thier life to an airplane, they are trusting thier life to the math.

[goog2k]

Dissolved CO2 makes acid.

By 2100, at current rates of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, average ocean pH will drop 0.3 - 0.4 and be @ 7.8 with an increase in acidic H+ ion concentration of 150-200%.

That will cause a 50% DECREASE of ocean carbonate ions (CO3).

Carbonate ions are needed for growth by plankton & corals at the base of the ocean's food chain.

Oops!!!

For info. on CO2 ocean acidification check:

Dr. Richard Feely, NOAA

Ocean Acidification Part 1 of 3

/watch?v=0KgRpJxWQDw&NR=1

[goog2k]

We make over 90 million tons CO2 each DAY.

Atmospheric CO2 is rising 2ppm per year (0.5%), TWICE that of 50 years ago.

CO2 levels are 37% above the highest levels for 650,000 years.

Dissolved CO2 makes acid.

Ocean pH has already dropped from 8.2 to 8.1 and H+ ion is up 30%

In 25 years CO2 will reach 450ppm which most oceanographers warn will interfere with growth of calcium carbonate forming plankton and corals.

They make the base of the ocean's food chain.

Search:

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

[BigPurple121]

Did anyone check out that graph in the beginning? Over the last 150 years there has been a .8 degree temperature change. Wow, that graph is misleading as hell.

[WCCobra]

True, but the chart is in Celsius. That 0.8 is about 1.44 degrees Fahrenheit. Might not seem like much, but it can have devastating effects on the environment.

A change of 1.44 degrees can determine whether it rains or snows in some parts of the world.

[schoonero]

Global warmists discredit themselves by ridiculing their skeptics and saying they're not just wrong, they're stupid.

That's not science, folks.

[abyssquick]

Do you mean to say that scientists aren't allowed to have personal opinions...? So, really they're just supposed to be data robots, indifferent to the widespread imprudent, and largely unfounded criticism of their life work?

Humans will always defend what they feel is right, and criticize what they feel is wrong - whether they are scientists, historians, linguists, etc. It's basic human behavior.

I think your standards for expected human behavior are skewed.

[schoonero]

@abyssquick I'm just saying, this guy is doing himself a disservice by indulging his biases. He'd be more convincing presenting his objective findings in an objective manner rather than dousing them with his personal opinions. It makes me skeptical.

[CityzenJane]

um oh oh oh one guess!

because the media like the populace is scientifically illiterate?

do i get a toaster?

[AdderallApocalypse]

eat it, @CalebHowe... :-P #tcot #climatechange #climategate #p2

[cristop5]

It's what happens when numeracy skills are not developed at school or college. The kiddies say "I'm not good at maths" and drop out or focus on "communications studies" or something.

Such people are a perfect audience for the AGW denier machine. Even better if they've had there powers of critical thinking distorted by creationist sophistry. In that case it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

[derfilmmacher]

You're too nice. Horace Mann wanted to dumb down education and he set up our system.

Edward Bernays- the "Father" of Pulibc Relations, the guy who invented Madison Avenue. Had a vision of a society in which American were specators in society.

The dumbing down is deliberately engineered. The corporate media want to control our perceptions.

Texas just wrote Thomas Jefferson out of the history books!

[djindox3]

because the media is in it for the money and not the spread of knowledge

[studio7manga]

Because the media is populated with a bunch of liberal arts majors that don't know shit about science.

[CityzenJane]

dude I was a liberal arts major... and I read science for fun...

[ndyt]

because the media doesn't care about science, it only cares about selling ad space.

[HBSchool]

It's an TEMPERATURE ANOMALY chart that spans 120 years. It's ALL "NOISE"...

[TheVigilante2000]

He asks: Why is the media even giving these guys any airtime?

Answer: People in the media are only concerned with advancing their own careers.

[sputnik323]

Look at Geological records... The graph shown in the video is "noise;" not just the last 15 years.

/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

[Causa10bserver]

Schneider revealed himself as just another profiteering climate alarmist when he mentioned the climate models as if they were some sort of proof. I also noticed that he left out the names of the many climatologists that have come out against the Gore hoax while pointing a finger at radio and tv personalities and saying "they're not scientists! they don't know anything and that makes me right!" It's sad that anyone still falls for this rubbish.

[truvelocity]

@Causa10bserver The two climatologists who came out against Gore have a study that has been debunked. Please ciet your information that this guy is profit mongering. The radio T.V. personalities are the experts, now?

[bbbbmer]

Thank you so much for this information! it's about time the deniers were put in their place by a learned person of climate discipline to counter the perpetuation of right wing media echo chamber pseudo science... Thank you so much!

[merdufer]

Whoever told this guy media is there to tell the truth.

[Shalek]

Because the media panders to stupid people.

[freesk8]

This guy is ALSO picking arbitrary end points to prove his theory. He only shows the last 120 years. Shown in context with the last hundred thousand years or so, the recent up-trend also looks like normal variability.

[uhhuhcheckit]

Pro-gobal warming enthusiasts also cherry pick evidence.

[Visfen]

Cherry picjking, yeah, that's what you could say that people are doing to support global warming as well.

100 years is not a relevant spectrum in geology.

[uhhuhcheckit]

agree 100%.

[schmicc]

@Visfen what does geology have to do with global warming?

[Visfen]

@schmicc Quite a lot actually, geology is "used" to measure temperature variations in the ice core records.

I will ask you counter question, isn't climate change basically dependent upon the prosecutor's fallacy?

[schmicc]

@Visfen ah, ok. I see where you are coming from. However, that does not make the 100y data any less relevant! 100 years might not be very relevant in geology but in weather research it is. The rate of change is alarming. Whether that is man made or not. Besides, the data from the thousands of years before would only negate the todays finding if they had the same rate of change, which they didn't (with a few exceptions which can be explained in theory).

[Visfen]

No it's not alarming, there have been many periods that have been warmer, many colder, actually the warmer period used to be refer to as the optimal period for life.

And it's not that previous data is negating the recent trend, it's that the recent trend is over such a small period of that it is irrelevant to compare it to other periods. Climate is a chaotic system, darn 40 years ago some were talking about global cooling.

[Visfen]

But even if you agree to look at this period, then nothing has happened the past 20 years in terms of warming under the margin of error, so I don't really see what there is to be alarmed about.

We have bigger things to worry about.

[schmicc]

@Visfen this is clearly wrong, I'm sorry. Look at the data. And I did not say it was never as warm as today, I said the rate of change is alarming... but clearly you have your ideas set. This is not a very useful forum for discussion, unfortunately (I mean the software, not the people). But if you could give me a link to the data which states that there was no change in temperature for the past 20 years that would help me enormously. Cheers.

[Visfen]

No it's not. Look at the little ice period during the middle ages, we had temperature variation form 8 to 10 degrees celsius over ten year periods. The ice core data is pretty clear on this. Which is also why they have pushed it out of the presentations (and hidden it in some examples).

My ideas or not set, my ideas are formed, from for instance the fact that the rate of change is not alarming.

You can find that in the IPCC report and if you understand margin of error.

[allgoo19]

I always wondered, why these people don't go to the other scientists with opposing opinions and discuss the matter, instead, talk to ordinary people? Is getting popularity of the people going to help solve the problem(or no problem)?

I see the same pattern with creationism arguments. They don't go to the science convention to challenge their theory but come to talk to us ordinary people. As if it's a popularity contest.

Science thoery decided by popularity, that's odd.

[Borror0]

@allgoo19

Stephen Colbert covered that the best:

"It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. Perception is everything. It's certainty. People love [President Bush] because he's certain of his choices as a leader, even if the facts that back him up don't seem to exist.."

If facts had any importance to the public, the debate over creationism and AGW would be over for a long time.

[ananiasacts]

@allgoo19, actually, it really does eventually come down to a popularity contest. But it is one between people actually qualified to understand the underlying science and who do research in the field--not the theatrical skills of a handful of ideologues with axes to grind. I think that's what you meant as well.

[uhhuhcheckit]

yep it's a popularity contest not a debate based on factual evidence

[kaje01]

They do algoo it's just not telivised.  The only time you ever hear of the issue is when they are talking to ordinary people about it (you).

[allgoo19]

@kaje01

"They do algoo it's just not telivised.."

Where did you get htis information? If it's not televised, you have seen it in the article or news somewhere.

[theone1308]

@allgoo19

Well, mostly because if you check the funding of most of the opposition, it comes from corporations who benefit from the controversy. It's like asking why the researchers who found that smoking causes cancer didn't confront the few research companies saying it wasn't true. It would be pointless.

The public needs to be informed. If not, then how do you achieve legislation that fixes the problem? Are you actually complaining about proper public education?

[allgoo19]

@theone1308

"Are you actually complaining about proper public education?.."

Spreading unsettled theory and not supported by main stream academic field only will confuse people. Just look how big the number of poeple actually believing in creatinism.

[moestietabarnak]

@allgoo19 Cretinism ? so appropriate

[theone1308]

@allgoo19

You think Global Warming is an unsettled theory and is not supported by mainstream academics??? Are you fucking serious? It might not be accepted by mainstream skeptics (mostly in the US). This is part of why We are the laughingstock of the world. Global warming has been widely accepted throughout the world. There is a few people, with special interests, who are convincing stupid people that it is not real. It's the same as the people who claim evolution is not real.

[allgoo19]

@theone1308

"You think Global Warming is an unsettled ...?"

Big "yes"!! to many people who don't know any better. Strategically you have to count those ignorant or else, you'll regret.

Anti-Climate change know this and that's their strategy. If the Pro-Climate change respond in the same way as if it's a popularity contest, pro-climate will lose the majority support. Anti-climate change has all the goodies convincing to ordinary people.

Be smart.

[allgoo19]

@theone1308

Private message is for invite only. You'll be blocked

[theone1308]

@allgoo19

Ok... You're just an idiot. You're misinterpreting the message in this video. I was trying to clarify that for you. Obviously, you didn't even get that.

Later moron...

[johnstall5350]

popularity=$

[allgoo19]

@johnstall5350

"popularity=$..."

popularity=$=famine=many deaths

Google, "Rising sea threatens Nile delta"

Only one of many to come in the future. Drought in Philippines causing severe rice shortage is another thing. It's only started. Expect to get worse and worse.

[marsCubed]

@allgoo19

The reason is that every single scientific institute in the world of national or international standing agree that man made climate change is a fact.

There are no opposing views, it is a scam by the oil corp lobby.

Have a look at

watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio

especially second half which details the opposing 'scientists'. They are same ppl who said ozone hole was not true, they said lead, smoking and asbestos were safe.

It is BS from the middle east oil producers and Bush's corp friends.

[allgoo19]

@marsCubed

"The reason is that every single scientific .."

That's what I'm trying to tell you.

Anti-climate change grouips are mobilizing their media power to distort the main stream academic opinion. It's easy for them to convince 99% of the population because people tends to pick the opinion that's easy for them to understand.

If it's easier to explain to 5 yr old, it's easier(like creationism or flat earth) to explaing to majority of the population.

[schmicc]

@allgoo19 ahem, you are aware that this is the case in the USA, the rest of the world has either other imminent problems or just accept global warming as a fact.

[allgoo19]

@schmicc

"you are aware that .."

I don't think you are aware that US is not like others. There's far bigger religious influence, far bigger influence corporations in US. US is the only industrailized country didn't agree with the Kyoto protocol.

[Researchrules]

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

[marsCubed]

@Researchrules

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]

@marsCubed

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]

@marsCubed 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]

@marsCubed Also, climate is not a temperature record. Climate = humidity + pressure + temperature.

[abyssquick]

This is about public literacy, not popularity. That's the main effort.

There are lots of know-nothing politicians / pundits who are expressing uneducated, imprudent opinions on the subject. The pool of scientists who disagree that global warming happens, who have degrees in relevant fields, is very, very small. Less than 1%. The media presents a false paradigm to the public.

The basic science that has been around for decades - carbon cycles, hydrological cycles, chemical properties, etc.

[allgoo19]

@abyssquick

"This is about public literacy..."

I'm not sure if you understood me correctly or I understand you correctly.

Way I understand, this person in the video represents that 1%, am I wrong?

1% of scientist can turn the popularity decision into 99% popular support. that's the scarisest part. Ordinary people don't pick the theory from logic but which one is easy to understand for them.

[abyssquick]

What I mean is that the -majority- of Climate scientists agree on global warming, and on it's manmade causes. This man here is defending the consensus, which is largely unspoken. There is a minority dispute (<1%) as there always is in any field.

I'm not a climate scientist. My understanding comes from ecological sciences. Even ignoring climate data completely, its no mystery the earth is warming up - the changing distribution of species, permafrost melt, acidification of the ocean, etc.

[abyssquick]

People exposed to the wide array of data- from both climate and ecological sciences, can't help but come to the realization of what is happening, of our impact. It is a very strong inference.

The reason there is "debate" in the public / media is due to efforts from political lobbies to confuse, divide, and conflate everything into a political conspiracy.

It is a very alarming and imprudent phenomenon, especially when we see media talking "climate data" and ignoring ecology completely.

[frankystein12]

@allgoo19 The point is, most of the population are not that intelligent, as most of them believe in one religion or another and are generally ignorant about what is really happening to the world around them.

[allgoo19]

@frankystein12

"are generally ignorant about what is really happening to the world around them..."

Not only that, Anti-Climate change has everything people want to hear. Is it a smart move to make it a popularity contest by responding in the same way(talking to the geral public and try to convince them) as Anti-climate change?

Why fight on their turf, when you see the losing battle is obvious?

[schmicc]

@allgoo19 they do. They come to the broad public in order to give everyone the information they need to make a decision. In order to give you the background based on which you will decide to use your car or walk, to leave your electronic devices on stand by or turn them off completely... They don't tell you what to do, but what consequences your actions will have, at least in their educated opinion.

[zzebowa]

@allgoo19 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.

[henkvanderlaak]

@allgoo19 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]

@henkvanderlaak

"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]

@allgoo19 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.

[quidproquo2004]

@allgoo19 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]

@quidproquo2004 "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]

@allgoo19 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]

@quidproquo2004 "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]

@allgoo19 Huh? When did I indicate otherwise. Sorry, but I don't think we're communicating in the same language.

[allgoo19]

@quidproquo2004 "When did I indicate otherwise. Sorry, but I don't think we're communicating in the same language."

Make your point then.

[goog2k]

NEWS:

Methane Releases from Arctic Shelf May Be Much Larger and Faster Than Anticipated

NSF - March 4, 2010.

Research results, published in the March 5 edition of the journal Science, show that the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, long thought to be an impermeable barrier sealing in methane, is perforated and is starting to leak large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.

[restlys]

@goog2k theres already methane in russia being released in the air.

[goog2k]

Yes, and your point is???

As Martin Heimann writes in Science: Wetlands and permafrost soils, including the sub-sea permafrost under the Arctic Ocean, contain at least twice the amount of carbon that is currently in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Release of a sizable fraction of this carbon as carbon dioxide and/or methane would lead to warmer atmospheric temperatures, causing yet more methane to be released. It would thus create a positive feedback loop that amplifies global warming.

[restlys]

@goog2k just pointing out its happening now. I think you mistook what I said to mean that since it was already happening, it was not because of mmcc(man made climate change)

My point was: since we did so much mmcc, the methane already started to get into the atmosphere.

[goog2k]

True, there is always some methane released from melting permafrost and arctic lakes. However, the Siberian arctic shelf has not released much in the past and methane release is now accelerating where it hadn't before.

This could become a dangerous tipping point.

If there is a massive uncontrolled release it could DOUBLE or triple atmospheric green house gases in 10 or 20 years. That would be disastrous.

[goog2k]

125,000 years ago a +2C rise in global temps. correlated with a 6-9 meter (25ft) rise in sea levels.

For a clear assessment of the most recent Climate Change science watch:

FORA (dot) tv

Global Warming: How Policy Can Catch Up With Science, Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, 2/23/10 (Environment)

Dr. Michael Oppenheimer is Professor of Geosciences at Princeton University & was the Lead Author on the third and fourth assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001 & 2007.

[1RadicalOne]

I did not know Michael Crichton was a climate illiterate...!

[uhhuhcheckit]

I agree. I always thought he was a truly brilliant man! (author, producer, med school graduate, director, screenwriter, Harvard alum, etc)

[neoldd1]

Michael Crichton is dead. He cannot respond to your slander. Unfortunately.

[alizee2010]

Well, his website has essays on "The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming."

[neoldd1]

@alizee2010 Yes, I know his work on the subject quite well, very eye opening.

[abyssquick]

Sadly, this won't stop the science illiterates from pontificating their imprudent stupidity.

[Scardy]

I love your use of the lexicon.

[abyssquick]

It gets precarious - it has to be appealing to say. Strings of words have a savory quality, but stray easily into overkill.

Usually, I miss.

[Luinreg]

Hazzah! Finally some rationality with good analogies explaining why on both sides abusing the research to prove their own agenda and means.

Let the scientists do the science and research and go to them instead of going to Al Gore, or Beck or Fox or MSNBC or CNN.