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 (17739)	11/27/2007 4:00:37 AM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

"Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology" Sorry, doesn't mean squat if they are not interested in the real science. Scientists can be politically motivated just like anyone else, and can use their reputations as a weapon against those who are incapable of using their brains. Is this news to you?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (17739)	11/27/2007 4:13:51 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

LOL So you eyeballed the slope of the graph. Boy you are sensitive. I suppose you think graphs are not meant to convey data, just look like pretty pictures? LOL! If your eyes are not good enough, print the graph out and use a ruler. I actually did hold a piece of paper to my monitor to help, but it is hardly difficult. What is far more difficult is to teach someone what data means. You have a major problem in that area, let alone being able to actually get any useful data. May I assume that you have now acknowledged that the value I got off the chart, is the same as the value which is widely quoted from the IPCC for the near term? And that it is very distinct from your claimed nonsense about how I got it from a mistaken "mean" of the 100 year projection? You seem to have forgotten that our discussion had a point to it. Could you admit that Lindzen only looses his bet, i.e. admits global warming, IF the warming over the two decade period hits the IPCC MEAN OR ABOVE for that period? Can we also assume that you are bright enough to know that the IPCC MEAN OR ABOVE has only a 50% possibility assuming their models are dead on! I.e. do you know at all what probability distributions are all about? Then consider that Lindzen wants 2:1 payout in his favor as well. I'm sure you can spin that some way you think saves face.