Misunderstanding Climate Change: Science & Public Perception

In this lecture, entitled, "Misunderstanding Climate Change: Science & Public Perception," Unity College President Stephen Mulkey takes a science-based look at common climate change misconceptions. The lecture was delivered 9/28/11 at the Unity College Centre for the Performing Arts.

• Category

  Education

[SoshiHogosha4]

Now way, this has no comments and only 219 views?! Anyway, thank you sir. Until now, I was just so ignorant of this. Not because I had 'nt believed it or heard about it, but simply because I did not understand how you arrived to your conclusions separating the natural occurring processes and the anthropomorphic ones. This has been the BEST presentation debunking any "hoax" approach to climate change, and I appreciate that you posted it on youtube, I'll try and spread it as much as possible.

[Viracocha711]

EXCELLENT COMMENT! I am so sick of the utter ignorance you see being spread around the internet so to see your comment it was like a breath of fresh air...Which is really SAD, huh? I have had countless discussions with folks who have been thoroughly indoctrinated by talk radio & other right wing professional denialist info. And despite me trying to be politie & shower them with actual science they still think it is all a scam to make Al Gore rich! SAD!!!

[keyvet]

Thanks

[MrCoffeeFiend]

You are the one who is lacking in knowledge. The reason the data matched up exactly to 1960 was because is was forced to. That was the calibration period. It does matter that data after 1960 was removed, because the sharp divergance indicates that the proxy data is not a good match.

[baserocklove]

YOu don't know shit about this. They used a whole bunch of proxy's, tree rings were just one of them, why don't you actually read the published paper?

The tree rings tracked everything and the instrumental record perfectly till 1960 when it diverged which is known as the tree ring divergence problem. They removed the tree ring data after 1960 on only one publication of the hockey stick, then later added it back in. It didn't matter because the instrumental data exists after 1960 anyways.

[jflem57]

we have technology at hand a prototype was introduced long ago for free energy by Tesla

[MrCoffeeFiend]

The IPCC is the worst when it comes to checking data. There is not a more corrupt group around. You really have no clue as to how data is analyzed and should just shut up.

[MrCoffeeFiend]

What is absured is forgetting that climate scientists are human and can make mistakes. This is why work needs to be checked. When scientists looked into the tree ring data and found the bias it throws the validity of the tree ring data into doubt. As far as I know this challenge to the accuracy of the tree ring data has not been double checked by a third party. The fact that others supported the acuracy of the data in peer review does not mean that it cannot be flawed.

[MrCoffeeFiend]

The hockey stick was shown to have a built in bias. It comes from a study of tree ring growth, but there is a difference in tree ring growth between quick growing short lived trees and slow growing long life trees. The older data under represents the fast growing trees and the recent data, which excludes small diameter trees, under represents slow growth trees.

[SoshiHogosha4]

Lol, seriously guys. Look up Willie Soon, a true shame to science, must be pretty nice trading a million dollars for humanity's future no? Who cares what happens 30 years from now, with one million I can live confortably for the rest of my life and not care if all of my astrophysics research goes to nothing (if he has actually "done" something besides trying to debunk anthropomorphic caused climate change). I wonder what is science to that kind of people. I guess...good business...Thanks again