SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (1633)9/11/2011 5:01:46 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie5 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) of 85487
 
Now both of you have chosen to promote the right's point of view on the matter. Why, only you both know, but it's not because you intrinsically understand the science itself--although you apparently understand the lay arguments about the politics of it and the case of the AGW.

One thing that I think is very important to understand is that we don't have to intrinsically understand the science itself to be able to find flaws in the scientific case.

Here are a couple of points that are meaningful

1. The case for global warming is based on 150 years of data. A meaningless timeframe geologically speaking.
2. The 150 years of data begins at the low point of a cycle (the little ice age) where one would expect to see warming in subsequent years.
3. We are currently in what is known as an inter-glacial period. We are locked in a glacial/interglacial cycle due in large part to the continental configuration. A large land mass floating over either pole along with continents stretching virtually from pole to pole and blocking ocean currents ensures this. We are currently at the tail and of the interglacial period where you would expect to see warmer temperatures along with lowered ice coverage.

When we see the global warming case being made because we had the hottest year in 75 years, what that means is that 75 years ago it was as hot or hotter. And that those temperatures were there when there was less atmospheric CO2 than there is now. This negates the AGW argument. And I don't need to look at the climate models while intrinsically understanding every component. I can see the contradictions right there on the surface. And the climategate emails just confirm what is already out there in the open.

And the fact that the models can't come close to predicting anything about the climate, it says that the climatologists haven't figured everything out and therefore the science most certainly cannot be settled.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News