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 : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (12758)	5/20/2007 9:09:26 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Feel free to link any graph which supports your claim. The wiki link I gave shows a number of such graphs including Manns, and they all look the same. What you and the other bashers chronically cannot comprehend is that it does not fricking matter what happened in the more distant past, but what the graph has been doing in the last 50 years and the next 50 years. The only benefit you can get from arguing over the old data, is if you could magically find a patch that looked like the present steep spike, which was then followed by a downdraft. The problem is the steep spike in the last century, not whether the point we are at is the hottest in the last xxxx years. We are concerned about the future, not the past. There are two points: 1) The "upper bound" on temps, and 2) The angle we are hitting that "upper bound" at. All the BS arguing has been about what the "upper bound" is. Who cares! Shift if a degree. Doesn't matter. The problem is that we are in the region of the upper bound, and headed through it at a steep angle. Please note that the steep portion of Mann's graph we have data for. That is not reconstructed. There is no arguing over the steep rise. The prior data is only important for calibrating models to help in understanding their accuracy.