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: neolib who wrote (19896)	1/29/2008 6:14:45 PM
From: Alastair McIntosh	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 36917

As far as I know all of Wegman's findings and conclusions are worthwhile given his background in statistics. They are on pages 48 to 52 of his report. As Mann's work relies heavily on statistics it would seem reasonable to have his work reviewed by mainstream statisticians. As you probably know, Wegman and his group were asked to comment on Mann's methodology, not to perform a temperature reconstruction. Now, where are the articles by mainstream statisticians refuting Wegman?

To: neolib who wrote (19896)	1/30/2008 2:13:53 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

perhaps neolib AKA ear2earfeces could point to any explanation of how CO2 causes radiative forcing. It seems there is nothing in the IPCC hoax of CO2 causing a global temperature increase. IPCC “Explains” the Greenhouse Effect By Steve McIntyre One of the fundamental questions for someone interested in the impact of doubled CO2 is exactly how (1) the greenhouse effect works; and (2) how the “enhanced” greenhouse effect works. AR4 FAQ 3.1 poses the question: natura2.gif I’m going to show their answer to this question in full because the answer does not rise about a primary school level and can hardly be considered an adequate answer to the question. (And it’s not answered in AR1, AR2 or AR3 either.) While I think that this is the sort of thing that should be laid in detail in one of the reports, I could understand if they chose to refer interested readers to texts containing expositions that met IPCC standards. But no luck there. We simply get a grade school brochure without references. Read the rest of this entry » climateaudit.org