Now we find out that the mathmatical calculations of the global warming enthusiasts was wrong what do you say?

Question

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/COMMENTARY/702895001/home.html

There are 127 rules when using the formula to predict climate change. They got 60 of them wrong. Make sure you read the part where it says politics got in the way of science. I loved that. Intentionally fudging the numbers or just ignoring the method, either one is criminal.

Answer 1

Dude, look at the source of your information.  If your barber told you that climate change was a big hoax, would you believe him?

Red flag #1:  This article is in the right-wing Washington Times Commentary section.  

Red flag #2:  It was written by a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA).  The NCPA is a right-wing think tank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ce...

Red flag #3:  The article is full of wrong information.  For example, it claims the surface temperature record is unreliable, when in reality its accuracy has been confirmed by several methods including a comparison to satellite measurements.

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

And he talks about the Wegman critique of the 'Hockey Stick' even though independent analyses have found that the Wegman analysis was amateurish and wrong.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/p...

So there's 3 quick red flags for you.  This is the problem with getting your scientific information from the right-wing media.

Answer 2

It doesn't matter....

You cannot change the brainwashed...

They are surrounded by facts that GLOBAL WARMING is a joke...  They are simply determined to remain the punch line...

Did it get cold last night?  Funny how we are compared to a greenhouse, yet are nothing like it...

We are a greenhouse and at the same time the weather is changing and becoming more eratic...

See, they contradict themselves every single time they speak.

Answer 3

Are you an "expert"? Or a Partisan Conservative. If you are a Partisan Conservative:

It sounds like your rules were made up by the pollution people.

And if your not worried about global warming then why take the licenses away from Liberals in fraudulent family court rulings? I guess you want THEM to burn more fuel on their bicycles?

No, on the face of things Conservatives know, but deny out of purely selfish "reasons" (otherwise known as knee jerk reactions or partisan paranoia). You want yours, but you don't want anyone else to have theirs. So you pretend not to understand the obvious as a bargaining ploy. It's: "Gee, I'm a stupid person, you must therefore let me spend 4 times as much carbon on my truck collection as you do in your solar power cell factory."  Then it's: "Oh wait, power cell factories make money, you must give it up fella cause your now a de@dbeat dad and you don't have any rights to any form of license, such as a power cell patent license, or a business license ~ go peddle your bike to court and see if we don't put your "liberal ace" in the poke at hard labor at 23 cents an hour you'll have that child support paid in no time. (Not that I see any reason to panic and buy solar power cells)."

And as for documentation? your partisans are the best traitors ever.  Taking anthers identity and all they have is partisan, your forte'. So when you take stuff you lie about it and simply say: "I donno what your talking about, my cousin Vinny there really is that scientist dude that built that solar cell factory." and in private: "You are mistaken, it wasn't your factory cause you wronged us and so we have a right to your property. Your nuts, all Liberals are nuts with their sick ideology of feed the poor, why that's theft. We own the poor. I'll bet you don't even recognise your wrong to steal our poor from us. You see, not recognising theft is a form of mental illness. We own your names. so how couldn't Vinny be anyone we say he is? And if we were to tell the public we were taking control so utterly they would get upset, and it's illegal to upset the mentally ill, so we have to lie."

People should be burning you as bio fuel. But I suspect you are burning everyone else. After all, with "politics" like yours, its a short step from Gas Chamber to Digester, spewing out burnable fuel from a human sacrifice.

Answer 4

It makes no difference to the agw enthusiast how many of these reports come out. We've already determined that multiple planets are warming, and even that didn't deter them from their  hypothesis. In fact, it's not a hypothesis to them. The study's over. Faulty stats, overall silliness or implausibility matters not. Nothing deters the agp warmers. It's a religion. Once you understand what they did to the hockey stick graph, you have to say 'wait a minute'.

The warmers will find the author of this article to be in the back pocket of oil.

From the above link.

A good example of a principle clearly violated is "Make sure forecasts are independent of politics." Politics shapes the IPCC from beginning to end. Legislators, policymakers and/or diplomatic appointees select (or approve) the scientists — at least the lead scientists — who make up the IPCC. In addition, the summary and the final draft of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report was written in collaboration with political appointees and subject to their approval.

Good Article.

Answer 5

I assume you read (and understood) the referenced paper by Green & Armstrong?  Or did you merely take as fact, an op-ed piece by a policy analyst with no climate science education or experience?

If you'd bothered to do a little research, you would have found that there's nothing in the referenced paper (by authors with no understanding of the physical sciences) that discredits the physical science that forms the basis for the theory of AGW.   So can we move on already to "Yes AGW is real, so how do we best mitigate and prepare for the uncertain future?"

Answer 6

Big Shock.  For every scientist out there claiming that global warming is real, there are 1 or 2 who claim it is not.  When I was a kid, it was global cooling that was threatening man kind.  As a teen there was El Nino and La Nina.  Now global warming.   Global Warming was a way for Al Gore to try and get elected.

Answer 7

Something fishy is going on.

Answer 8

I see the usual suspects are here Dana and Ken and all. As a mathematician myself I know it is impossible to reach the correct answer when the equation is so flawed. I believe in recycling and conserving energy and practice it in my daily life and I often urge others to also. However I will not resort to lies to make them. Sorry Dana and Ken.

Answer 9

That this stuff comes from a "conference" that was a non-scientific publicity stunt by a right wing thinktank.

If they were right, this would be front page news.  It's isn't, not because of some imaginary conspiracy, but because it's nonsense.

"the summary and the final draft of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report was written in collaboration with political appointees and subject to their approval."

There's some truth to this, although the edits are generally minor.  And, more importantly, they go in the wrong direction for your argument.

The scientists draft said it was "virtually certain" that man was the major cause of global warming.  The political edit changed that to "very likely".  Not much of a change, and not in the direction of exaggerating global warming science, but rather in diminishing it.

Answer 10

Our government doesnt want the citizens to know that global warming is happening and that our usage of natural resources is a major part in it. Bush wants to sell oil, and the only way he will be able to continually sell it is by saying that global warming isnt happening, and that oil isnt a cause.

Answer 11

On the first day Gaia created amino acids.

On the second day Gaia created DNA.

On the third day Gaia created bio-mass.

On the fourth day Gaia created ecology.

On the fifth day Gaia created ecologists.

On the sixth day Gaia choked.

On the seventh day Gaia repented.

Answer 12

I love this section of Answers!

So many "opinions"  so little time to read all of them.

Edit:

Dana--- the article's authors questioned the math and method-- what difference does it make where it is published? The question should be "are they correct?"   or not.

Answer 13

Global Warming believers have become a special interest group in Wash D.C.