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: Brumar89 who wrote (17571)	11/21/2007 11:05:46 AM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36921

I'd didn't claim that Lindzen was complaining. You seemed to think that somehow having a scientist of Lindzen's calibre made the film legitimate. The film was full of crap, and IIRC, even the makers of it eventually modified it to reduce the level of crap. LOL! You can educate yourself on the LIA and MWP and learn that there is indeed much uncertainty as to their extent. Hansen's hockey stick was global, not northern hemisphere. He in no way claims that europe didn't see important changes from both the LIA and the MWP. Get a clue.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (17571)	11/21/2007 11:22:10 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

Hansen's infamous hockey stick chart isn't. Michael Mann "Wharf Rat has claimed those periods were only small localized affairs and didn't affect the world's climate as a whole." No, IPCC sez that.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (17571)	11/21/2007 12:19:43 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

Perhaps you can find a statement by Lindzen saying the LIA and the MWP were global events, with substantial effects everywhere on the global? Lindzen is careful to cast doubt where he can, but not make stupid statements. He is not advancing any theories on climate change that have the messy problem of trying to comprehensively fit facts. He leaves that to the other scientists. His role is to proclaim doubting statements, which if analyzed don't actually cast much doubt, but his intended audience is easily duped so no matter, then pocket a fee for the statements. Nice racket.