Comments on: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/09/04/schulte_survey/ Blogging the science and policy of global warming Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:13:20 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5.2 hourly 1 By: Sheryl Canter http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/09/04/schulte_survey/comment-page-1/#comment-513 Sheryl Canter Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:54:46 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/09/04/schulte_survey/#comment-513 Hi John, Thanks for posting the follow-up and links - appreciate it! Hi John,

Thanks for posting the follow-up and links – appreciate it!

]]> By: JohnMashey http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/09/04/schulte_survey/comment-page-1/#comment-512 JohnMashey Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:50:09 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/09/04/schulte_survey/#comment-512 Several interesting further developments: 1) Tim Lambert showed absolutely clear plagiarism in Schulte's letter to Oreskes/Fox, i.e., the one sent on Labor Day demanding apologies or resignation, which was then posted on SPPI's website 2 days later and press-released to the world by Rob Ferguson. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/schulte_replies_to_oreskes.php Not only plagiarism, but plagiarism of error-ridden and already discredited material from Peiser, via Monckton, that cast doubts on Schulte's credibility to do this study in the first place. 2) AND THEN, it turns out that the poorly-regarded journal, Energy and Environment, where this was supposed to get published ... wasn't interested in doing so... http://www.desmogblog.com/schultes-analysis-not-published-not-going-to-be Several interesting further developments:

1) Tim Lambert showed absolutely clear plagiarism in Schulte's letter to Oreskes/Fox, i.e., the one sent on Labor Day demanding apologies or resignation, which was then posted on SPPI's website 2 days later and press-released to the world by Rob Ferguson.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/schulte_replies_to_oreskes.php

Not only plagiarism, but plagiarism of error-ridden and already discredited material from Peiser, via Monckton, that cast doubts on Schulte's credibility to do this study in the first place.

2) AND THEN, it turns out that the poorly-regarded journal, Energy and Environment, where this was supposed to get published … wasn't interested in doing so…
http://www.desmogblog.com/schultes-analysis-not-published-not-going-to-be

]]> By: Sheryl Canter http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/09/04/schulte_survey/comment-page-1/#comment-511 Sheryl Canter Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:03:39 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/09/04/schulte_survey/#comment-511 Hi John. I remember "How to Lie with Statistics". That was a good one, too. I haven't seen the others - I should take a look. Thanks for the links! And sorry your post was temporarily held up from appearing - it was the links. The spam filter grabbed it. Hi John. I remember "How to Lie with Statistics". That was a good one, too. I haven't seen the others – I should take a look.

Thanks for the links! And sorry your post was temporarily held up from appearing – it was the links. The spam filter grabbed it.

]]> By: JohnMashey http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/09/04/schulte_survey/comment-page-1/#comment-510 JohnMashey Sun, 09 Sep 2007 23:24:41 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/09/04/schulte_survey/#comment-510 0) Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics is a fine book (and title), should be part of critical thinker's bookshelf, along with "Innumeracy", "How to Lie With Statistics", "How to Lie with Charts", and "How to Lie with Maps". and maybe "Visual Display of Quantitative Information". 1) The Schulte study didn't "update" Oreskes. It used different rules. Oreskes is a well-published geoscientist / science historian; Schulte is a well-published enodcrinologist. 2) Google: less than half all published scientists endorse global warming to see how widely this story has gotten. 3) Peiser's results were fairly thoroughly discredited. 4) This is being heavily covered by sleuths elsewhere: See especially "Chris" comments demanding apologies, thretening lawsuits, etc. http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2007/09/schulte_responds_to_oreskes.php http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/schulte_replies_to_oreskes.php http://fergusbrown.wordpress.com/2007/09/07/the-truth-will-out/ Keywords: Lord Christopher Monckton, Klaus-Martin Schulte, Benny Peiser, Marc Morano (EPW), Bog Ferguson (SPPI). 0) Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics is a fine book (and title), should be part of critical thinker's bookshelf, along with "Innumeracy", "How to Lie With Statistics", "How to Lie with Charts", and "How to Lie with Maps". and maybe "Visual Display of Quantitative Information".

1) The Schulte study didn't "update" Oreskes. It used different rules. Oreskes is a well-published geoscientist / science historian; Schulte is a well-published enodcrinologist.

2) Google: less than half all published scientists endorse global warming
to see how widely this story has gotten.

3) Peiser's results were fairly thoroughly discredited.

4) This is being heavily covered by sleuths elsewhere:

See especially "Chris" comments demanding apologies, thretening lawsuits, etc.
http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2007/09/schulte_responds_to_oreskes.php
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/schulte_replies_to_oreskes.php
http://fergusbrown.wordpress.com/2007/09/07/the-truth-will-out/

Keywords: Lord Christopher Monckton, Klaus-Martin Schulte, Benny Peiser, Marc Morano (EPW), Bog Ferguson (SPPI).

]]> By: Sheryl Canter http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/09/04/schulte_survey/comment-page-1/#comment-509 Sheryl Canter Thu, 06 Sep 2007 15:24:58 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/09/04/schulte_survey/#comment-509 You can blame the title of the article on me. I'm the editor of the blog, I edited Lisa's article, and I chose the title. It's actually the title of a book that was rather famous in its time: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Lies-Damn-Statistics-Manipulation-Opinion/dp/0440351219/ref=sr_1_2/102-0664557-1903344?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189091995&sr=8-2" rel="nofollow">Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics: The Manipulation of Public Opinion in America</a> When I was in graduate school, it was required reading. Of course, the study of statistics was a big component of my graduate training (not to mention I was in graduate school a few years ago). I'm sorry if the reference was too obscure and the title caused offense. You can blame the title of the article on me. I'm the editor of the blog, I edited Lisa's article, and I chose the title. It's actually the title of a book that was rather famous in its time:

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics: The Manipulation of Public Opinion in America

When I was in graduate school, it was required reading. Of course, the study of statistics was a big component of my graduate training (not to mention I was in graduate school a few years ago). I'm sorry if the reference was too obscure and the title caused offense.

]]> By: Colleen438 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/09/04/schulte_survey/comment-page-1/#comment-508 Colleen438 Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:49:22 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/09/04/schulte_survey/#comment-508 Lisa, I agree with K.C. Weber. When you debate the topic with name-calling it lowers the validity of all your comments. In truth I think there will always be opposition when it comes to global warming. All those scientists and organizations that oppose each other have to leave their personal interests behind to present the truth to the public, (instead of results that are produced based on who funds them wants the answer to be). Due to how the world works it will take time for a consensus to emerge until the situation is even farther out of hand. Colleen S. Lisa, I agree with K.C. Weber.
When you debate the topic with name-calling it lowers the validity of all your comments. In truth I think there will always be opposition when it comes to global warming. All those scientists and organizations that oppose each other have to leave their personal interests behind to present the truth to the public, (instead of results that are produced based on who funds them wants the answer to be). Due to how the world works it will take time for a consensus to emerge until the situation is even farther out of hand.
Colleen S.

]]> By: K.C. Weber http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/09/04/schulte_survey/comment-page-1/#comment-507 K.C. Weber Thu, 06 Sep 2007 00:17:35 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/09/04/schulte_survey/#comment-507 Dear Lisa, I find it interesting that you refer to opposing viewpoints as "lies, damn lies." Is that how you debate an issue? Just for your information, there are viewpoints on both sides of the issue. Some support your global warming viewpoints, others don't, as in the website listed below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus I'm not saying which side is correct. I'm just saying that the debate is not as cut and dry as you say it is. And there are respected scientists and organizations with opposing points of view. But calling opposing viewpoints "lies, damn lies" takes believability away from your argument and lowers it to just namecalling, even if you have facts to back up your argument. K.C. Weber Dear Lisa,

I find it interesting that you refer to opposing viewpoints as "lies, damn lies." Is that how you debate an issue?

Just for your information, there are viewpoints on both sides of the issue. Some support your global warming viewpoints, others don't, as in the website listed below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

I'm not saying which side is correct. I'm just saying that the debate is not as cut and dry as you say it is. And there are respected scientists and organizations with opposing points of view.

But calling opposing viewpoints "lies, damn lies" takes believability away from your argument and lowers it to just namecalling, even if you have facts to back up your argument.

K.C. Weber

]]> By: Why we can&#8217;t trust &#8216;em &#8230; skeptics and misrepresenting evidence &#8230; &laquo; Energy Smart http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/09/04/schulte_survey/comment-page-1/#comment-506 Why we can&#8217;t trust &#8216;em &#8230; skeptics and misrepresenting evidence &#8230; &laquo; Energy Smart Wed, 05 Sep 2007 16:55:59 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/09/04/schulte_survey/#comment-506 [...] And, well, so on … Schulte is getting touted by the Drudge Report and other fonts of scientific wisdom. Sadly, there will be too many who will listen.  For other refutations of Schulte, see:  DeSmogBlog’s Oreskes Shreds Contradictory Climate Survey; Climate411’s Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics; and Grist’s Hunting the White Whale: If those opposed to action on climate change are like Ahab, the scientific consensus is their white whale. The reason is simple: as Frank Luntz’s famous memo pointed out, if they can convince the general public that the science of climate change is uncertain, they can drag the debate over policy to a grinding halt [...] [...] And, well, so on &#8230; Schulte is getting touted by the Drudge Report and other fonts of scientific wisdom. Sadly, there will be too many who will listen.  For other refutations of Schulte, see:  DeSmogBlog&#8217;s Oreskes Shreds Contradictory Climate Survey; Climate411&#8217;s Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics; and Grist&#8217;s Hunting the White Whale: If those opposed to action on climate change are like Ahab, the scientific consensus is their white whale. The reason is simple: as Frank Luntz&#8217;s famous memo pointed out, if they can convince the general public that the science of climate change is uncertain, they can drag the debate over policy to a grinding halt [...]

]]>