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 (20336)	2/14/2008 5:28:36 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

Thats true. You may have thought about it, but if so you were playing things too cute to mention it. Well, I'd call that half an admission. Why don't you actually admit that you posted several posts which made no sense because you were confusing US vs global temp records. You specifically stated 1934 was the hottest for the earth. You still claim that is true? If so, please produce some evidence for why you would claim that. Let's face it. You don't even try to discuss things - you hurl insults, appeals to prejudice, and attack the characters of experts cited who don't toe the AGW line. Lets face it, you are so dishonest I can't discuss things with you. When you make a glaring mistake you just ignore it, or claim the other person is responsible. That is what you do on GLARING mistakes. What do you do on more subtle ones? I would love to discuss the issues if I could only find someone even half-competent to discuss them. Please tell me how I can discuss anything about Mann with you when you don't even acknowledge what the graphs are about? The most recent example is you failed to distinguish between Global temperature trends, N.H trends (Mann), vs. US trends (McIntyres temp corrections). You are also on record as having stated that Wegman did produce a graph countering Mann, and that also is total BS, for a similar but even worst example. The Wegman graph #4 if you had read the text was looking at A SPECIFIC N. AMERICAN TREE RING series. So it is not even the N. American temp let alone the N.H reconstruction, which is what Mann's Hockeystick is all about. I will admit that Wegman was a bit dishonest in labeling that graph because the title kind of makes it look like the upper portion is the Mann Hockeystick, but you need to take a bit more responsibility for understanding what you are looking at. Especially when I had already warned you that Wegman HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY GRAPH showing the "corrected" version of Mann's temp reconstruction. I repeatedly stated that Wegman avoided doing that, and you bashers here were sure Wegman had. You don't have the integrity to admit you were wrong there either (and of course, you can't produce any proof for your position, because Wegman didn't produce any such graph). I'm all eager for you to put your best example of good science on the AGW doubter side, as well as your best example of your own understanding of it forward so we can examine it. It is not my fault that you have been doing poorly so far.