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: neolib who wrote (12814)	5/21/2007 2:32:38 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Mann should not conclude that some prior temps might not have been higher?? Yes that is interesting as it means for one or several years temperatures may have been several degrees warmer than the so call hot 1998 and thus were clearly not hot because of man made CO2. Some other mechanism caused several degrees warmer temperatures back then. And as no one has a clue about how it really works, those same drivers and not CO2 are just as likely the major causes of present temperatures. Mann has created the appearance of a sucky or dishonest scientist. That by definition proves Mann is a sucky scientist. But many fools cannot see the obvious.

To: neolib who wrote (12814)	5/21/2007 3:00:16 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Whether prior temperatures were higher in prior periods is pretty darn important. Mann's hokey stick chart was meant to convince people that the climate over the past thousand years had been pretty stable and then suddenly at the beginning of the industrial age, temperatures started rising sharply without interruption and were now at an all time peak. If temperatures in the past were higher than today's, then it raises a question of whether today's temperatures are in line with normal cyclical variations. ...some prior temps might not have been higher? As I keep asking your crowd, what does this do to negate the sharply rising portion of the hockey stick, the portion for which we have measured data?