Haha global warming!!!?

Question

its not reall. trust mee.

Al Gore is a hybocriat because he says we need to"live green" and recyle and have hybriad cars and not have airplanes and stuff like that... but then he lives in this HUGE house and it wastes so much electricity and he has 4 private jets and has 5 cars...come on you cant believe this is really happening. its just some guy thats bored and wants to make up a FALSE theory. if you believe this you are very uneducated. and if you dont agree with me dont leave and comments because then i will just report your answer and wont give you ANY points. thank you. and remeber only educated people please answer. thanks:]]

Answer 1

Well, i'm an educated person, and i think your theory is more false than Al Gores. First off, you can't spell.

I went to school thank you very much, and i still am in school.

He's not the only one that believes that global warming is happening and he wasn't the first to mention it. It is happening. Don't you notice the severe weather around the world? The randomly appearing heat? The unbelievable cold weather? Huricanes?

Come on, where the h**l did you go to school? Didn't you learn anything in 6th grade science? Or even 3rd grade spelling?

Now, go ahead and report me if you would like. For this all just an opinion, and so is yours. I would just like to say this...

Proud 8th grader!!!

Answer 2

http://www.break.com/index/global-warmin...

Answer 3

he is not a hypocrit. he probably thinks because he has his four jets and toys etc. that, as he is most certainly not going to give it all up, he's far too important. So, everybody else has to be green to allow him his superior status. F----ing moron!

Answer 4

Learn to spell, please.

Speaking in sentences would be great, too.

Also, rethink your opinion before you repost it like that again,

it's just making you look uneducated. =]

Answer 5

Who cares who can spell and who can't, give me a break all you haters out there!!

Of course its a scam, but it sure gives some companies a good excuse to get on the bandwagon and label their products "green" or "enviormentally friendly" and then charge more for them. I'm all about doing my part to make the most of the resourses I have, recycling, conserving water etc... But I do not like all the hype about the Global Warming when they have yet to prove it and the Earth has not warmed in over 10 years and the data they are using does not include all the weather stations that have closed in the last 10 years many of which are any extremly inherantly cold climates. I'm just tired of companies raping my pocketbook because I want to do the right thing and make sure my grandkids and their kids and kids kids have a wonderful world to live in.

"In a stunning turn of events data (quietly) released by NASA shows that the 4 warmest years ever recorded occurred in the 1930's, with the warmest year on record being 1934 (not 1998). Lets see if Al Gore revises his road show." "NASA Revises Temperature Data - 1930's warmest on record!"

Answer 6

its all a hoax

Answer 7

WOW you are such a loser!

idk about the Al Gore situation, but global warming IS REAL!!!

you can see the changes now, and you are up here on the Internet talking about this guy who is trying to let people know about it. It seems to me like you are the uneducated one...and immature!

Grow up, and instead of complaining about global warming and this guy who you think is fake, why don't you do something to help make this situation better!!

smart 9th grader here! oh...and that comment you just posted on my question, just shows how immature you really are.

you might want to get a life...and im not taking Al Gore's side at all. im just voicing my opinion.

Answer 8

Honestly, global warming is a real problem. First of all, you are not as educated as you think you are. It's "hypocrite" not "hybocriat". Also, just because Al Gore doesn't live the way he does doesn't mean that it isn't real. How would you explain the melting of Antarctica? The Earth isn't just randomly heating up.

Answer 9

Nope no such thing as global warming, In the scientific and political debate over global warming, the latest wrong piece may be the “hockey stick,” the famous plot (shown below), published by University of Massachusetts geoscientist Michael Mann and colleagues. This plot purports to show that we are now experiencing the warmest climate in a millennium, and that the earth, after remaining cool for centuries during the medieval era, suddenly began to heat up about 100 years ago--just at the time that the burning of coal and oil led to an increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.

I talked about this at length in my December 2003 column. Unfortunately, discussion of this plot has been so polluted by political and activist frenzy that it is hard to dig into it to reach the science. My earlier column was largely a plea to let science proceed unmolested. Unfortunately, the very importance of the issue has made careful science difficult to pursue.

But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.

But it wasn’t so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called “Monte Carlo” analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen? What is going on? Let me digress into a short technical discussion of how this incredible error took place.

In PCA and similar techniques, each of the (in this case, typically 70) different data sets have their averages subtracted (so they have a mean of zero), and then are multiplied by a number to make their average variation around that mean to be equal to one; in technical jargon, we say that each data set is normalized to zero mean and unit variance. In standard PCA, each data set is normalized over its complete data period; for key climate data sets that Mann used to create his hockey stick graph, this was the interval 1400-1980. But the computer program Mann used did not do that. Instead, it forced each data set to have zero mean for the time period 1902-1980, and to match the historical records for this interval. This is the time when the historical temperature is well known, so this procedure does guarantee the most accurate temperature scale. But it completely screws up PCA. PCA is mostly concerned with the data sets that have high variance, and the Mann normalization procedure tends to give very high variance to any data set with a hockey stick shape. (Such data sets have zero mean only over the 1902-1980 period, not over the longer 1400-1980 period.)

The net result: the “principal component” will have a hockey stick shape even if most of the data do not.

McIntyre and McKitrick sent their detailed analysis to Nature magazine for publication, and it was extensively refereed. But their paper was finally rejected. In frustration, McIntyre and McKitrick put the entire record of their submission and the referee reports on a Web page for all to see. If you look, you’ll see that McIntyre and McKitrick have found numerous other problems with the Mann analysis. I emphasize the bug in their PCA program simply because it is so blatant and so easy to understand. Apparently, Mann and his colleagues never tested their program with the standard Monte Carlo approach, or they would have discovered the error themselves. Other and different criticisms of the hockey stick are emerging (see, for example, the paper by Hans von Storch and colleagues in the September 30 issue of Science).

Some people may complain that McIntyre and McKitrick did not publish their results in a refereed journal. That is true--but not for lack of trying. Moreover, the paper was refereed--and even better, the referee reports are there for us to read. McIntyre and McKitrick’s only failure was in not convincing Nature that the paper was important enough to publish.

How does this bombshell affect what we think about global warming?

It certainly does not negate the threat of a long-term global temperature increase. In fact, McIntyre and McKitrick are careful to point out that it is hard to draw conclusions from these data, even with their corrections. Did medieval global warming take place? Last month the consensus was that it did not; now the correct answer is that nobody really knows. Uncovering errors in the Mann analysis doesn’t settle the debate; it just reopens it. We now know less about the history of climate, and its natural fluctuations over century-scale time frames, than we thought we knew.

If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions. Suppose, for example, that future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend. (It could happen.) If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously--that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small--then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey. If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling.

A phony hockey stick is more dangerous than a broken one--if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution.

Answer 10

In some way yea,

i do agree with you.

But you have to think about it.

I mean honestly, Who knows hes using green power energy, or whatever their called.

who wants to live with no car or house? i mean c'mon.

Answer 11

Listen up all of you right wing evangelicals in disguise. If you had actually attended a real school instead of being home schooled on that evangelical BS, you would have the answers to all of your questions already. You see, you can pray all you want but the only thing that is gonna solve problems in this world is science and technology. So just let the overwhelming majority of scientists that agree that anthropogenic global warming is real solve the problem and you stop confusing the issue by believing right wing driven, jesus-camp sponsored groups like the Heartland Institute. Go back to reading your bible and being igonorant and let the real people (AKA, scientists) solve the problem. I can guarantee you, scientists will solve the problem faster than your "god" who is just about as real as ceiling cat, the flying-spaghetti monster and the invisible pink unicorn deity.

Answer 12

Yeaahhh, no offense, but I'm not going to trust someone who can't spell "it's," "hypocrite," "hybrid," doesn't use capital letters at the beginning of sentences, attempts to censor those who disagree, and follows her posts with informal " :]] " that sort of invalidate anything she might have said before that.

"only educated people . . . answer"

Too bad it's not only educated people asking the actual questions . . .

And please tell me you do know Al Gore didn't come up with the theory . . . he was born in the 40's, AGW was predicted in the late 1800's.

You didn't even attempt to refute the logistics of the theory. You just said Al Gore flies private jets.

Answer 13

You have a point...a bit!

There are some benefits to global warming, if the heat rises, the ice on the northern pole will melt, which will result in the sea level decreasing. If you think it through, you have all these millions of square miles of ice floating on water, and as you will know, water expands when it turns to ice, so if this ice is turned back to water, it will take up less area, resulting in sea levels decreasing, reducing flooding and so on.

The negative point to this is that if the temp. rises, the ice on the Antarctic will melt. If you know, the Antarctic is a landmass, so as the ice melts and turns into water, the water will be pushed out to sea, resulting in sea levels rising. Also, there is more ice in the Antarctic than in the n.pole, which will actually result in sea levels rising.

This would mean that almost all of Europe would lie under water, much of the coastline of the Americas would be flooded, which means cities on the coast, or near the coast such as Washington DC, New York, San Francisco, Miami, Sau Paulo and Rio de Janero would disappear.

These are just a small fraction of the major cities in the Americas, but worldwide, over 4 billion people would drown!