Politics of Energy Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Sam who wrote (9996)	6/25/2009 8:33:27 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (3) of 86355

Well, Sam, I used to do statistics for a living and now I manage a team of people that do it for a living and the data is pretty obvious to me. These scientists who come up with these probabilities are doing statistics with the data. That's how they come up with these probabilities. Denying CO2 is a problem is akin to telling your doctor he's lying to you when he tells you there is a high probability that your high cholesterol will lead to heart problems. Denial and refusal to act would be a very foolish thing. This period of time we are living in is an obvious outlier based on the 800,000 years of ice core data we have. Only serious doubters could deny that fact. We can debate the root causes, but something very abnormal happened in the last 150 years to throw the natural cycles out of whack. Some say it is sunspots but that has already been eliminated as the prime root cause through statistical analysis. The fact is that CO2 has a higher R-squared than sunspots when correlated to temperature. Not sure why that takes a rocket scientists degree to understand. That alone would lead you to lean towards CO2 as being a key variable in the equation.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next