Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (163862)	7/24/2001 11:57:43 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

>>>>Reputable people back the CO2 hypothesis. Reputable people dispute it. On the issue of Global Warming, Only Reputable people of science really count in the opinion of is this real. I have not seen any Reputable people of science or science that supports the CO2 hypothesis. That is to say all the support for the hypothesis is based upon data that seems to have to be interpreted in an unnatural way to support the CO2 hypothesis. I see article after article saying the CO2 hypothesis conclusion is a done deal. I don't see any informed and rigorous proof based upon data that comes close to clearly showing warming due to Green House Gases. I have spent many years of my career as an engineer in the science of measurement. Specifically in how one knows how accurate the measurement is by knowing how accurate the measuring device is by tracing the calibration of the measuring device back to standard maintained by the Bureau of Standards. This takes into account part per trillion. I developed and wrote traceable calibration standards and equipment for defining time and voltage measurement. I see in the analysis that says, "the CO2 proffered warming is questionable", a rigorous examination of data and the cause and effect. I have not see a rigorous examination of data and the cause and effect that supports CO2 proffered warming. All the pro warming analysis seems to have to fudge interpretation of data or ignore other contradictory data or ignore more rational interpretations of the meaning of the data. I read the story, the science, the theory, the explanation of those I consider Reputable scientist and their story of I don't think so rings true. I have taken the time to find and document links to many sources of science on the CO2 Global Warming. The links give basic science explanations of Global Warming and several give analysis of the data and quantify different effects. I ask for any to post some science and all that is posted is opinion about how the rest of the flat earth society of the world are upset that they cannot find the edge fo the earth. my political links page watman.com You want to know about the output of the SUN. reason.com What does kyoto buy a sucker? Message 16087093 The predictions microtech.com.au The sun as the culprit. microtech.com.au The big discrepancy. Message 16117788 I dicuss and take the time to back my proffers with links to data and analysis that is reputable. tom watson tosiwmee