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: TimF who wrote (18665)	12/19/2007 2:54:06 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36927

There was net pressure to conclude that global warming is a serious problem and strongly related to human CO2 emissions. ROTFLMAO. That is what the science said. There was net pressure to tone that down. What do you think all the science said? That the future was neutral, so the conclusions were all based on political pressure to deviate from that neutral position? You are a work of art in denial! If things come in massively below or above their predictions they will be considered to have gotten it wrong. Otherwise they probably will be considered to have gotten it right. I've got to be careful with you and strawmen. Whats "massively"? I'll stick with what I said. Low, and they will be laughed at. Near equal and higher, they'll be vindicated. If things are considerably high, they get some flak along with hugh praise. The doubters will get tarred and feathers. Most of the feedback is likely to be negative, either all along or eventually. The models are far from perfect on both forms of feedback. There is ample historical records of "tippings" which the current models can't with any accuracy predict. Can you show an example of a negative feedback "tipping" from the historical record? I'd say that is a little hard to come by, because almost by definition any historical "tipping" is a swing away from nuetral, which is why we can see it in the record. If the "tipping" were negative, i.e. it regulated to neutral, it would not show up in the historical record. I'm a little mystified as to what you think justifies your odd claim? Regarding the pressure for or against dire conclusions in the IPCC. I simply suggest that you watch Greenland the Artic for the next decade and see how it stacks up against IPCC predictions. IIRC, prior IPCC predictions (before 2007) and also 2007, are so far tracking conservatively. Would you like to stick your neck out and claim otherwise? How long does it take you to spot a trend?