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 (19757)	1/22/2008 2:18:17 AM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36921

What is true, and the data I have presented bears this out clearly, is that American and other "advanced nations" data is as good or as bad as any other data. No need to treat it with any special preference. Excluding data from poor countries is a dumb idea. For various reasons, most of the countries with the hottest climates also happen to be the poorest countries. So guess what, you diminish the effect on averages of the hottest countries, and global warming average change goes down. How surprising. Then you get the Thomas Watsons et al, putting on the dancing figures and the weblog drivel, but the "research" is excluded from formal scientific publication, and they whine like merry hell about it. The whining deniers data is drivel and they wonder why no respected scientist touches it. Shame on any person who thinks, because they consume more energy, their data is somehow better then anyone elses. Let the normal process used by scientists be used to check the validity of the measurements taken. There is no valid science textbook I know of that requests the investigator to check the bank balance of the person who made a measurement, and to statistically weight it's validity based on an observers bank balance.