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 (21707)	5/26/2008 1:29:45 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 36917

I do wonder, does neolib lie as much as gavin. well one know's if neolib points to it, it is the product of ear2ear feces. but neolib with his doctorate in the history of basket weaving should be able to explain some of gavin's bullshit. So in your coma neolib, do you also believe that the measurements being made are the lies and the truth is in the computer models. gavin cits this. "The new analysis adds to the growing body of evidence suggesting that these discrepancies are most likely the result of inaccuracies in the observed temperature record rather than fundamental model errors." gavin replies "indeed" Which by the way can be taken in context as neither confirmation or agreement with the a commentary from Peter Thorne from nature. And at the bottom is the fact that all the supposed discrepancy is at 200hpa. And 200hpa is not where the IPCC models fingerprint is a zero match. "Over the period of observations, we find a maximum warming trend of 0.65plusminus0.47 K per decade near the 200 hPa " And this by applying their own method of adding up the numbers with some wind shear windydind method. Which shows how full of ....., gavin is once again. neolib, for grins take a look where 200hpa is... ROTFLOL..