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 (20322)	2/14/2008 1:49:55 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Do we know that no divine power has had anything to do with the origin of the universe and life? Yes or no. No. Question for you. Can anyone show with even reasonable probability that any divine power had anything to do with the origin of the universe and life? Yes or no? Can't say no, without bringing up an argument, can you? --------------------------------------------------------- Can anyone show with even reasonable probability that any divine power had anything to do with the origin of the universe and life? Yes or no? Its a matter of opinion. In my opinion, yes. Take for one thing the fine-tuning of the universe for life that many physicists and cosmologists have commented on. There seem to me to be three reasonable explanations - that the universe was designed, that the universe is lucky, or that the universe is one of an infinite number of universes and ours just happens to be the lucky one. I consider the one lucky world hypothesis far-fetched. And the infinite worlds hypotheses (sometimes inaccurately called the many worlds hypothesis) is as much a leap of faith as the designer hypothesis. And frankly a less reasonable leap in my opinion. At any rate, of the three possibilities, certainly the designer hypothesis is reasonable. ------------------------------------------------------------ You don't get it. You made a point that NASA had accepted McIntyre's corrections which then made 1934 the warmest year of the past century. Any graph which shows the 1930's, particularly 1934, as being substantially cooler than later years must be wrong. How does one accept that 1934 was the warmest year of the past century and still put forward graphs showing it as a lot cooler? Why don't you explain this to me as a test of whether you can figure anything on climate out by yourself? I've already told you why, and you still can't understand it. A less disagreeable person would just admit they can't answer the question.

To: neolib who wrote (20322)	2/14/2008 2:03:01 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 36917

so lying neolib tries misdirection as his latest cheat. Wegman validated criticisms by McIntyre and McKitrick and that rendered products of Mann ear2earfeces. Wegman evaluated how Mann created his bogus hockey stick. And Wegman and peers found... criticisms by McIntyre and McKitrick were found to be "valid and compelling". en.wikipedia.org And Wegman and peers and McIntyre and McKitrick did not suggest that Mann and peers were liars like neolib. Their expert analysis detailed sucky bogus execution of scientific methods. What did McIntyre and McKitrick find... LOL.... The data set of proxies of past climate used in Mann, Bradley and Hughes for the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects. We detail these errors and defects. We then apply MBH98 methodology to the construction of a Northern Hemisphere average temperature index for the 1400-1980 period, using corrected and updated source data. The major finding is that the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century. Wegman and peers found... criticisms by McIntyre and McKitrick were found to be "valid and compelling". en.wikipedia.org