Replies

Just like the earlier article today where the liberals in the Justice Dept want to bring charges against anyone who DOES NOT believe in global warming. So now, you can go to jail for disagreeing with these thugs. Well, I disagree, come and get me.

I think globull warming is the biggest hoax in the world.

Perhaps we’ll share a cell.

I have been a denier since the 89. I attended my first conference in 89 on environmental mathematics, and one topics was global warming. None of the mathematicians or scientists at the conference believed that global warming was caused by man. However I got hold of a study that supported the claim that global warming was because of our use of fossil fuels. In the study the author randomly selected cities around the world and looked at trends over the period of 5 years, and his data supported his claim. So I wrote a program that randomly selected cities around the world and tried to duplicate the author's results. However, no matter how many times I reran the program, my results were always smaller than his, well outside the measurement error.

Now when I do an experiment and I report the results, I always include the measurement error (standard error of the mean). If you do the same experiment and get the same results with in the margin of error, then you have to conclude that you agree that my results are possibly correct (we both could be wrong). Now if you get results that are outside the measurement error, then we know that either I am wrong, or you did the experiment incorrectly.

I contacted the author, and requested his data, which he refused to provide. That is a RED FLAG. If I am wrong I want to know it, and I would gladly give you any data that you wanted. Good or bad, I want the truth.

Years later I found out that the author faked the data to support his claim. The fact that a scientist would cook the books with his data is simply horrible. What is science if it is not the search for the truth.

It was about that time that I took my first course in chaotic dynamical systems (cds). Weather is a cds, which means there is no probability model for weather, because of the sensitive dependence on initial conditions. That course rocked my world, because it destroyed the Foundational concept of mathematics. It was believed by the Hilbert (a great mathematician) that if we know enough about a system then we could predict what would happen. Cds proved him wrong. This means that all predictions about weather, or the climate are just WAGS (wild a$$ guesses). I guess I will be going to jail.