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 : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (25595)	2/15/2007 5:40:18 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Heh! Heh! Why is it that the models that global warming "scientists" use to prove global warming in the future can NEVER recreate today's climate when they input known environmental data from the past? You would think that if those models were accurate that when known data from the past is inputted they would recreate today's climate with 100% accuracy, yet they NEVER accomplish that feat. So why should we believe them when they input hypothetical data into the very same models that they will accurately predict global climate 50 - 100 years into future? And why can't these same "scientists" accurately predict weather on a local basis 3 days in advance when they tell us with absolute certainty what the global climate will be in 100 years? Give me a break!

To: GST who wrote (25595)	2/15/2007 5:48:09 PM
From: J.B.C.	Respond to of 35834

Ahh the usual tactic, berate the presenter, but have no facts. Where are your facts? There is a lot of data that disprove anthropogenic global warming, but it gets ignored. Because right now it's politically incorrect, and that's ALL IT IS. You came here and said it WAS SCIENTIFIC FACT, but you haven't backed it up. Prior to 1492, the world being flat, was scientific fact, by your definition. There was an editorial in the local paper (Denver Rocky Mountain News)last Saturday, where a local (University of Colorado) climatologist's data was used for the report from the UN, however he was not asked his conclusion for anthropogenic global warming? He does not believe it. Yet the UN told you that the 2300 scientist that participated in the study agreed. Doesn't this bother you at all? How about that the actual report won't be released for 90 day's so that the UN can scrub the report so that it supports their February announcement. Is there nothing fishy to you with this? If 2300 "scientist" agree that human activity causes Global Warming, what does that say about the 17,000 scientist that have signed the petition linked at the Oregon Institute of Science & medicine concluding that human activity is not causing global warming? That list includes 4000 prominent scientist, with 72 Nobel Prizes. I am not the only one that disagrees, so you can forget about me being the lone wolf not agreeing out there. Just another one of those inconvenient truths. By the way what are your educational qualifications on this topic?