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 (17702)	11/24/2007 1:57:08 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

So Lindzen only has to pay if what you claim will happen does happen. Totally fair. Earth to challenged Brumar89: IPCC says the mean change is +0.4 deg C, with +/- variance about that. What don't you understand about means and variances? Lindzen is saying he concedes ONLY if the temp is AT or above the mean projection. The IPCC says IF global warming is happening PER OUR MODELS, there is a 50% change the warming is at or a little below 0.4 deg C and 50% change it is at or a little above 0.4 deg. Lindzen is only conceding if it is at or above. Thus we might say Lindzen will only concede if things are on the worst side of the IPCC model predictions. You still have not answered as to why the reverse would not be a better measure: Lets assume that global warming IS happening UNLESS the temps cool by more than 0.4 deg C. See the problem now? I'm not going to respond to you anymore, because you have aptly demonstrated just how mentally challenged you are.