The solution is to lie about everything in your Facebook profile. Wrong home town, wrong school (use ACME High School or something like that obviously not true). No one at Facebook has the time to check whether the information is correct, but if you leave it blank they can get it elsewhere.

Only if you believe that this tweaking is intentional and "evil". I believe that most of the errors produced in modern science rather stems from "groupthink" and from the subconcious need to produce the results that we are looking for. It is a growing problem that has been identified in recent times.

Also, I don't trust the "adjustments" without having read papers proving those adjustments do not affect the results. One should never trust anything without good reason.

But thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

I haven't seen this data, but I believe that the data you refers to is the already filtered data, no? The data where they removed some stations that did not "fit with their data". Without you pointing to exactly where the data is, I don't think I'll be able to find it so if you know where it is, please do tell.

The wikipedia article lists some sources and even a combined study that has looked at 31 studies made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity
They very diplomatically concludes that it is very "difficult to find any link between electromagnetic fields and symptoms". Which I find to mean that the research shows that there is none.

First, if you look at the attractor given, that is a huge area where the attractor exists. This could mean the difference between global warming and global cooling. So, your attractors won't save your model (I know that's just an example and that neither you nor I know what the input data does to the climate models we are discussing, but I'm certain that even small changes to the input values will change the outcome a lot, since they keep modifying their model each year that new data arrives).

Averages also aren't a good way, especially if you are not looking at the correct data. This is one of those things that confuse and infuriate people about the climatologists and their results, they just won't produce their data. This is not an unreasonable request. When I did my thesis I provided everything about my thesis in the report, including the software I had used and the data I based my conclusions on. This is so that someone reading it can actually check my results, which is just good science.

Except it does, if you read it (your article). And other sources have quoted the same material differently, so maybe the truth lies somewhere inbetween their reporting.

And even in the article you refer to, the author recognizes that this is interesting research and that they may be right. I find it interesting, however, that he refers to them as "some scientists at CERN" when the proposal for he experiment comes from Henrik Svensmark and that the theory they are testing is his.

But again, he is persona non grata because of what his theory would mean to global warming doctrine, so let's just keep him out of it.

Also, the most interesting point of Svensmarks theory is that he is not at all saying that human beings can't heat up the planet he is just saying that the sun has a hell of a lot to do with our climate too, a lot more than the current models take into account, which was the point I was trying to make.

I'm sorry, but climate modelling is not well understood. Henrik Svensmark's theory that the stars (and the sun, which is a star :)) are controlling the cloud coverage goes against the prevailing models, yet they are turning out to be true. See the C.L.O.U.D. project which just finished at CERN. It is interesting that this result was not mentioned anywhere on slashdot. This is exciting research, provable theories are being proven. This is science, not opinion.

Unfortunately, you are still trying to estimate what is happening 40-100 years in the future, and we fall straight back into chaos theory and the same problems as weather forecasting.

And once upon a time all scientists knew that the earth was flat. Just because there is a consensus doesn't mean that they are right. I think people are being sceptical because we're just not seeing the evidence of what they are proposing. So far, none of the climatologists predictions have come true. Al Gore himself has bought San Fransisco-bay area real-estate that would be washed away if his own predictions were true.

Even if there are a million scientists that claim that the air is full of little invisible fairies that push the clouds around, if they are scientists, they should listen when someone puts forward proof that this is not the case. There are scientists (Henrik Svensmark, for example) that have alternative theories to why there is global warming and who actually have experiments that confirm their theories.

I think one of the main reasons why people are sceptical to this research is that it is a field where we suck. We suck at predicting weather. We suck at it because it is too hard. If you've studied just a little bit of chaos theory you know that it is impossible to forecast weather for more than a very limited time. So all one can say about it is possibly general and broad statements about how it's going to be in the far future and even then just a slight change in the model or the data you're basing your calculations on and that all changes.