I think it is more like skewing the results to suit the outcome their funding requires.

Also one of the inherent problems is that when predicting 0.1 Degree future changes it is easy to skew the results, it is only when you times there calcs by a factor of 10,000 and check the entropic process at the critical points that their skewing becomes clear.


>>Finally, a real scientist comes out with a statement based on fact. The scientific community doesn't all walk in "lock step" regarding global warming. Here's a link and an excerpt from an article by a climate scientist from that school some of you may have heard of - M.I.T.
>
>Here is an interesting article ironically enough with another MIT professor with an opposing opinion but is disputed by another "expert". I think the problem is there are too many "experts" (on both sides) and Chicken Littles. The ones touting the apocalypse of GW tend to be the ones that omit the most facts.
>
>http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-6/115251113615960.xml&coll=1