- The time frame (sample size) is very small compared to the history of the planet and normal variation could easily explain any deviations in temperature we may or may not be experiencing. There is very limited data from deep sea temperature changes as well as atmospheric temperatures.
- Other causes are not being considered - such as noted in the above article, solar variations. variations in the earths wobble, etc.
- The Mann data (the infamous "hockey stick") has been "doctored" to exclude certain data
- It may be to our advantage to have the planet warmer - consider that people were healthier and lived longer during the Medieval Warming Period
- In statistics we can only be confident of a correlation when we have less than a 5% uncertainty. Even assuming that there is a 10% uncertainty, this is 100% greater than statistical certainty. So 90% certain is meaningless.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Here's an interesting article about another theory of climate change. The exciting thing about real science is exploring cause and effect. Being open minded to new theories is the mark of a good scientist. Scientists often use correlation to guess at causation but correlation is not the same as causation. That is the problem with the whole Global Warming hoopla. It is all based on correlation. Some say that it is "90% certain" that man made Carbon Dioxide is responsible for global warming but there are several problems with this statement.