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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Math Junkie who wrote (37749)	8/9/2008 1:44:07 AM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

If you have an engineering degree, the only thing that determines whether you are qualified to debate the science is whether you have done enough reading on the subject, IMO. I disagree. I am not qualified to judge issues involving climatology, meteorology, ecology, geology, oceanography, etc. I can only observe the methodology used by those who report. That's where things get interesting. Many of the objections involve methodology. Some of the most important claims have been challenged on their cross disciplinary methodology. One prime example is Al Gore's "hockey stick" which attempted to show a steady rise in global temperature over centuries with a dramatic spike in the 90s purported to be proof of man made global warming. The data was submitted by a world renowned climatologist and presented as proof by the IPCC. A panel of statisticians were assembled by the National Academy of Sciences and they concluded the statistical methods used were flawed and the data actually showed no such "hockey stick" but instead, a slow and steady rise in temperatures going back to at least the 1600s, well before industrialization. There was no correlation with human activity but it was consistent with the view that we had a mini iceage in the middle ages and the temperature rise over the last few centuries is simply a recovery from that mini iceage. You won't hear that reported by the driveby media. Other such objections are voiced by experts who challenge the computer models which forecast dire consequences, saying the computer models are seriously flawed. Others challenge the measurements on ice cores to determine the past air CO2 content showing the methods used to measure CO2 in ice samples are flawed and no such accurate measurements can be made with the methods employed. Another example is data showing that historic atmospheric CO2 often trails temperature rise just as it often precedes it so the data can argue effect or cause. You won't hear that either from the driveby media. Other experts say we have no reliable data on the historic thickness of antarctic ice even though some claim it is receding. These are but a few examples. There are many more. What does this all mean? It means the debate continues and we don't have the answers. Anybody claiming that there is a consensus is in deep denial. Do some research on your own and don't just listen to one side.