How long before Al Gore and the looney left blame Global Warming for the Japan earthquakes?

Answer 1

I'm just waiting for a consistent explanation of what's going on. The TRUTH is that no one knows. Period. No one.

Here's my general rule (which I learned in statistics). If someone shows that statistically, something causes something, and it's less than 97%, it's probably a load of bull. So, when 'scientists' say that there is a 90% chance that global warming is caused by humans, that means that they can't show that humans cause global warming. If they can't account for that other 7%, there is probably some data they are not looking at (or ignoring on purpose?). I use scientists in quotes, because as a scientist, I believe that a scientist should use the scientific process, ie: prove or disprove their hypothesis with real experimentation instead of making hypothetical situations in computer models to 'prove' them.

How can we believe any of this stuff if 'scientists' are saying that global warming both causes more intense hurricanes ( http://www.net.org/globalwarming/sea_level/ ) and less intense hurricanes ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417182843.htm ). I think the truth can be seen in this article, if you read between the lines ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070619125716.htm ) - that more data is needed.

To say that global warming definately causes natural disasters is about the same as saying that Katrina and Rita attacked the Gulf coast because of the chemical industry in the region.

---------------------------------

Hey, Cosmo, check your math.

How many sample points did you use to get your sigma values? If the change in temperature over the past 30 years has been 20 sigma, that means there has been in increase of 20 standard deviations from the average? What average? If you look at data since 1880 (the data most alarmists use, because data from the 1880's was not collected for tropical climates, so it shows a more drastic temperature increase), the average surface temperature is 59.104 °F from 1880 to 2006. The standard deviation of that time period is 0.429 °F. The average temperature from 1977 to 2006 (your 30 years) is 59.688 °F, so the increase over the total average is 0.584 °F, which is 1.36 sigma, not 20. I got my data from the NCDC.

One interesting fact about how we collect CO2 concentration values. The 'monitoring station' is Mauna Loa, in Hawaii. It was built to study VOLCANOS (Which are the largest producers of CO2 on the planet). Correlating the data collected since 1959 from Mauna Loa with Greenland ice core CO2 values, I get the average from 1880 to 2006 of 319.26 ppm CO2, a standard deviation of 23.18, and an average from 1977 to 2006 of 356.38 ppm, so the change in averages is 37.11, giving a sigma value of 37.11 /23.18 = 1.60 sigma. I have included my data below, so you won't call me a liar, or claim that I'm making things up. Feel free to perform the calculations yourself.

I have no idea what you mean by isotopic evidence. Please explain it. But considering your claim of 20 sigma for an actual 1.36 sigma, and 100 sigma for a 1.6 sigma, my guess is your 10 sigma is actually closer to 1 sigma. That means that there is a 67% probability that there may be a correlation. Statistically, that means there is no reliable evidence.

If you have refuting data, please share it. I AM willing to consider other logical arguments, unlike most Democrats.

So, where exactly are you getting your data? Is it from a politician or a scientist? And, which one should you believe?

{cosmo pwned}

Answer 2

ok H -- there are guaranteed to be lunatics on the two facets of the questions. there are such rather some who answer with out information and this includes information anchors and so on. each warm day we get in our very own locale some all human beings is yelling 'international Warming'. this occurs for all time and it incredibly is somewhat tricky. regardless of if we've a warmth wave on the comparable time the bridge collapsed you may not characteristic this as an effect of international Warming.

Answer 3

Hey, mad scientist, you learned in your statistics class that one needs a 97% chance of being correct in order to have a 50% chance of actually being correct? That must be some kind of weird mad science school.

There is essentially no doubt that the Earth as a whole has been warming over the past 30 years, and that anthropogenic CO2, the result of burning fossil fuels, is to blame. The increase in temperature is about 20 sigma, the increase in CO2 of all types is about 100 sigma, and the isotopic evidence that this is caused by burning fossil fuels is about 10 sigma.

Now, it is true that there is uncertainty about natural CO2 sequestration effects, and like the IPCC, I would give those natural processes about a 10% chance of saving us, if we don't save ourselves.

So these are the odds:
10% chance we'll be OK if we do nothing
90% chance that the world will be seriously damaged if we do not reduce fossil fuel use.

This hardly seems like a call for inaction.

I think it is extremely unlikely that Al Gore will blame the Japan Earthquake on global warming, and would be willing to bet that he doesn't.

Answer 4

Earthquakes happen Japan every day...but some times they do there crap,its just because Earth active there,but Global warming nothing do with it,its just only in Europe and USA....north lands....

Answer 5

That sound like a good shake . I lived in Tokyo for 2.5 years. They had many shakes.It is almost normal but not for me.
We need to stop Gore from propagating this lie and making money with it. The poor is who it is hurting.

Answer 6

That you think it's a conspiracy says more about you than what you hope to say about them.

They have supporting facts, that aren't made up. If you read the report it covers almost everything skeptics bring up for global warming.

The most telling thing to me is that they give it a 90%, and not 100%, while the anti-warming people are certain they know what's going on without refuting the data.

As far as bashing Al Gore, attacking the messenger, doesn't make the message false.

Answer 7

Probably won't be long. They have to blame man for causing some natural disaster since there haven't been any hurricanes at all this year.

Answer 8

3 days. They are even now working up their latest scare film.

Answer 9

You mean they haven't yet? Just wait for the 5 o'clock news tonight......their hypocritical mugs have got to be on there spewing some hate.

Or, they'll just blame it on President Bush....one or the other!

Answer 10

You mean they haven't already?