Another example of questionable use of statistics involves the global warming debate. The July 24, 2006 Los Angeles Times featured an op-ed by Naomi Oreskes, a social scientist at the University of California San Diego and the author of a 2004 Science Magazine study. Oreskes insisted that a review of 928 scientific papers showed there was 100% consensus that global warming was not caused by natural climate variations. This study was featured in Al Gore’s film, which portrayed future disastrous consequences of global warming: “An Inconvenient Truth.” Apparently there is a problem with Oreskes’ study, however. In a critique by British social scientist Benny Peiser, we learn that the Science Magazine analysis excluded nearly 11,000 (more than 90%) of the papers dealing with global warming. Also pointed out was that less than 2% of the climate studies in the survey actually endorsed the so-called “consensus view” that human activity is driving global warming and some of the studies actually opposed that view.4

Statistics indeed! The only question for the discerning reader to determine is “Are they being used to reveal the truth or something quite different?”

Kaw schreef:Yes... But if... If the other 11.000 does not say that climate chances can be originated towards human influences... They do not say that it isn't true. In fact almost no study says that the climate changes is not influenced by humans.

The second thing:
We must look at the source. If Shell and Texaco produce 200 studies where they say that it is not proved that humans are responsable for the global climate chance... Those studies tell us more about the companies then about the real situation in this world. Also political statements can be heared in most of those studies.

What's the truth? I don't know.
I only know the climate is changing for sure. Even when you look at the statistics. And its going unusual fast without a known source from nature itself. The sun is mentioned but the sun is been studied since the 60s and the sun is not exceptional hotter than in the 60s.

Kaw schreef:Sigaretes?
Extenction of loads of species?
The restoring ozon layer after abandoning aerosol and DDT?
A bit of coffee for the heart
Butter is only bad for you if butter is part of your bad overgreased diet
The iceage is most likely triggered by the absense of the major sea flows

It's to short to tell if it is a climatechange for a long period. Around 50 years is relatively very short.

And yes some areas became colder in the past years, but the sum of the temperatures show us a rise in temperature.

jvdg schreef:Many scientologics are doubting about the fact who causes this changement.

parsifal schreef:

jvdg schreef:Many scientologics are doubting about the fact who causes this changement.

I bet you mean scientists

memento schreef:Ah, how truly human nature is shown in all the concerns about the signs of time. Sure, the earth is heating up, sure the ozon-layer thinners. But, is thát something to worry about? Is not everything in the hands of our Father?

Oh, how many times I've seen people worrying about what they should eat, in order to live healthy, about what they should en shouldn't do, in order to save our planet, and still they don't seek salvation for their souls.

The end is drawing near. No doubts about that. But it's for the last 2000 years! Our Lord comes as a thieve in the night, at the hour that nobody expects him to come. Oh, don't be that foolish to think you can examine the 'signs' to see him coming. Only the eye of faith will behold him. Without faith we can only worry ourselves into an eternal death...