Climate Change Researchers just make it up?

I found this news article

I think, as a scientist, I would be run out of my field if I just made stuff up as I went along. Now they may have had two datasets both of which go up. Climate change on the rise and we look at some small snippet of the human population and mental illness or cancer goes up…WOW There must be a connection.

Were these people (the scientists who wrote the report) insane? Maybe they are brain damaged? Mentally ill?

This is a giant leap. Were the researchers looking? Did the people that were examined have lifestyle differences that caused this increase? Are we as humans just better at diagnosing things than we were 10 years ago? How can you connect those two? If you can’t tell I’m a little annoyed here but mainly because I can’t figure out how to work the phrase ‘Zeus’s butthole’ into my rant.


3 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by rogerthesurf on April 29, 2010 at 12:10 am

    You are not far wrong, check out this comment I left on a “through a green lens” site about the EPA.

    “Does the EPA know that excellent direct measurement of atmospheric CO2 concentrations exists since 1812?

    What the EPA is basing their conclusions are graphs published by IPCC and others which use proxies previously before about 1957. Proxies are measurement deducted from ice cores, tree rings etc which naturally are subject to a wide margin of error.

    Here is the graph typically used by the IPCC of atmospheric CO2 using proxies til 1957 “Global Temperature & CO2 Concentration Since 1880. Data from NOAA’s National Climate Data Center (NCDC) & Oak Ridge National Laboratory.” (Note the use of ice core proxy until 1957)

    Here are the direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 taken since 1812.

    Notice a few minor differences?

    Here is a summary of the paper explaining the direct measurements.

    Question: If these data has been available all along, and there can be no doubt that the accuracy has to be infinitely superior to that of proxies, why are they not used by the IPCC AND the EPA?

    Cheers Roger

    The fact is in this case it looks like the IPCC and their scientists simply used data that fitted closest to their requirements.




  2. Posted by Yoshi on April 29, 2010 at 8:43 pm

    It never ceases to amaze me that so many people do not understand the distinction between correlation and causation.

    My stats prof in grad school had a great example where he showed that countries with more opera houses had higher rates of cancer. He then asked us if we thought that opera caused cancer since the data linked them. We spent the next half hour figuring it all out and learning about correlation and causation. I have never forgotten the difference between the two!


  3. […] Of course it would be a lot easier to fund science if people weren’t making stuff up. […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: