Should ever person who beleives that man is the cause of global warming be forced to take a statistics course?

Question

Should they be required to post the following:

Statistically significant sample and show how it relates to the data set used in current hypothesis.

What is the mean variation and how it relates to the current data set.

Answer 1

The earth has been heating up and cooling off for years. That's why they call it "climate change" now. No matter which way it goes, they can blame it all on the human race, cars, etc.

I believe we should all be green to an extent. But it's going too far, its become a fad now. And a political thing.

There are definitely more important things for the government to be concentrating on.

Answer 2

I think everyone who denies global warming should also be forced to take a statistics course and, more importantly, learn to spell.

Answer 3

At minimum, it should be a job requirement at the IPCC!

Answer 4

NO

they r aware of the concept of statistics

but they just dont know the real "unaltered" facts and numbers of climate change !

just put another view into the media

=)

Answer 5

It's all about data sampling, statistical analysis and computer modeling.  You won't find many, if any, specialists in these fields vetting the climatologists' work.

When I heard temperatures,  determined by proxies from 800  years ago accurate to a tenth of a degree AND computer models with scores of poorly understood parameters extrapolated out decades that depend on these proxies...  Well, that's all I needed to know.

Answer 6

Not necessarily.  Global warming scientists do extensive statistical analysis of the data, and of the reliability of their results.  It's OK to trust that.  The idea that the IPCC doesn't include serious experts in statistical analysis is utterly absurd.  It shows a real ignorance of their work.

But, the skeptics certainly should.

They keep saying it hasn't warmed since 1998, when that is statistically wrong analysis of the data.  1998 was simply an unusually warm year, an "outlier" in statistical terms.  This graph shows it clearly.  (And also indicates the statistical analysis of the data, with green "error bars").

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

"Skeptics" should also be required to define the words "weather" and "climate" and to understand why climate is vastly more predictable than weather (which includes, among other things, statistical knowledge that averages are more predictable than individual values).

Answer 7

I don't believe people are responsible for global warming but I think it others do that is great. They are really harming anyone. If a person looses a job because of this maybe they are going to be better off anyone so I don't get into all of that I live & let live. No, I don't believe in statistics either.

Answer 8

no.

Answer 9

No, but I wish global warming 'skeptics' would take a little rudimentary statistics.  They're the ones who try to argue that global warming has stopped either because January 2008 was a relatively cold month or because 1998 was the warmest year on record.  In reality, any statistical test you apply proves that the planet continues to warm:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/0...

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/0...

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/0...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Answer 10

Never mind people who believe, people who study climatology should take a statistics course.

From the Wegman report:

"‘It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community."

http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/0607/0...

Answer 11

I don't think you are being rational for a "top contributor." There is a reason why societies have experts in their associated fields. As a society, we trust these experts to provide the best research available for our advancement. Without mainstream science where would you be?

This reeks of a denier argument, and not a very good one at that! Maybe we should also require deniers to attend sessions with psychologists to help them understand and move past their denial...

Answer 12

No, it's not required that people who believe what the consensus of scientists has concluded knows statistics. I've learned quite a lot on this subject because I find it interesting, but there's a reason why we have professionals in different areas to guide and counsel us on what to do, and I don't pretend to know everything they do.

The only thing that should be required is some "common sense" on how to determine who to trust in this silly debate. More knowledge should only be required if you decide to stand up against the consensus to back up your claims.

(B t w, I do have rather advanced educations in math and Statistics and from the relevant data sets I've seen the theory is still valid. )

Answer 13

You have it flipped 180 degrees. The top scientists who have taken those statistics courses are in agreement that man is causing most of the warming. You must be getting your information from the lunatic fringe.

What does it say about our society when people ask questions like this and are taken seriously?