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 (23485)	12/21/2008 11:03:23 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Neo, it's true that without objective analysis with actual numbers which you can also check, Mqurice the Marvelous eye-balling is not worthwhile as scientific input. But it can be true for all that. If somebody goes somewhere and they report on something without actual measurement, it doesn't mean their observation is untrue. One could see a swarm of flamingos for example and a swarm of bats. Without knowing how many were actually in either swarm, it might be obvious to an observer that there were something like twice as many flamingos as there were bats. If they report to somebody that there were LOTS more flamingos, "Like in the thousands I guess, but maybe only 1000 bats", there aren't precise numbers, but the observation is true for all that. But in this instance, you can see the data too: ih.fotothing.com First, smooth the graphs so each sun-spot cycle is smooth instead of jagged so you can more easily see the peaks. Second, average the peaks of all of them. Third, note that several decades at a time, the sun-spot activity is higher or lower than the total average. Note that sun-spot activity is not random. It's possible that it is random, but the probability of those peaks being so trend-like by fluke is very low. It's not a good bet to bet that such trends are just random. Normally, trends like that are because there are driving forces making the trends happen, whether you understand those forces or not. If you are inclined, you could even calculate the odds. But no matter what the answer, there is still a trend. It's not like 23 coming up each time on roulette for 6 times in a row which would be just luck [though I'd want to peek under and check for magnets]. Mqurice