Why do you think data and analysis corrections never seem to support anthropogenic global warming?

Question

LOL!

Oh! and I see this. This report hits the entire AGW theory right on the nail.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/Carter-IPCC_on_the_run.pdf

Answer 1

Exactly!  This is the whole reason why "global warming" is the only science that requires people to believe.

At a time when temperatures were increasing naturally, a few scientist jumped on the band wagon of the environmentalist movement and concluded incorrectly that the warming was because of man's actions.  They concluded this with partial data and helped by a public who doesn't have an understanding about objective science.

Now that they made their predictions, they can't say that they were wrong.  After all, they still have mortgages to pay and kids who need to go to college.  The trick now is to blame everything that happens, floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, lack of hurricanes, eclipses, cold and warm all on global warming.  This pallor trick will still suck in the simplest of fools.

Answer 2

you can tell any right wing extremist lie with statistics.

Answer 3

Did you notice how when I asked the opposite question, I gave examples of how they do support AGW?  And in your question all you did was link some right-wing think tank report written by a marine geologist who can't even do a simple statistical analysis to support your position?

That sums up the difference between AGW 'skeptics' and proponents in a nutshell.  Nicely done.  If you can't come up with your own original question, at least support your claims.

To answer your question - they always do:

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

Answer 4

Because Dana is rubber and you are glue and whatever he says bounces off of him and sticks to you?

Answer 5

The complex and multi-variable matrix that is Climate is far from being a simple "Greenhouse" Anthropogenic Warming (A.W.) is not established to the extent many think. A consensus is not a substitute for a proven event. The probabilistic modeling used to predict climate changes are scenarios and only as good as the parameters & defined variables in the model. The Pro A.W. camp has been caught playing with the data so often that it's forced them to abandon (Global Warming) and now the Politicaly Correct term is (Climate Change)

Mr. Hansen has also admitted publicly to exaggerating the results of his work in order to gain media and political attention. Case in point In 1988 during the Rio Conference on Climate change, with much fan-fare Hansen introduced climate models that predicted a 12 degree increase in temp. in the same time frame that today he's pared-down to a 3-5 degree increase. This type of thinking subsumes Science with Facism.

Remember beginning in 2003 all that talk about the Arctic Ice going away? Interesting how nothing was mentioned about the Largest Sheet of ice the South Pole (S.P.) Except that is for the Ross Ice Shelf which represents less than 5% of the total Antarctic. Besides Greenland, the S.P  is the only other significant ice sheet.  It should be noted that summer 2003, at the S.P., was the greatest summer extent of sea ice ever measured, and Antarctic sea ice is in an upward trend.

Ask any penguin (massive die off) in 03 due to the ice being so far away out into the ocean from the breeding grounds, or ask any Russian inhabitant of Vostok (only time ever to be forced from Vostok base because supply ship could not get near shore) and they will tell you there is not much global warming at the South Pole. Ask a climate expert and they will tell you that the models predict a no waming at the south pole. That is AFTER they changed the forecast for the South Pole. Original IPCC predictions called for "most the warming to be at the poles" then when the observations did not show this they CHANGED THEIR MODELS to predict no warming at the S.P.

Anthony Watts is a broadcast meteorologist who is leading an all-volunteer effort to photograph and document all of the weather stations in the GHCN. He started in the US and now 1/3 of US stations have been photographed. 85% of them do not meet the minimum standards of NOAA and have a strong warm bias. The NOAA specifies that temperature sensors should be a minimum of 100 feet away from buildings, concrete, and asphalt.

This indicates that up to half of the observed warming is not real. Watts presented his findings to scientists at UCAR. You can see examples here:

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather...