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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (5481)	2/28/2009 1:16:50 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 86356

People seem to be much more inclined to believe what they hear from non-experts because it’s what they’d rather hear. As if the AGW side, expert or non-expert, isn't telling their patrons and disciples what they want to hear. Two reasons why people pay attention to "non-experts": lack of trust in the objectivity and honesty of all the experts non-experts regularly catch the experts in mistakes and errors. -------------------- Any change in a single year — no matter what the variable — cannot generally be linked to climate change She should have stopped there, but no ... she had to tack on an except for when we want to attribute a change in a single year to climate change .... , although the ice losses in 2007 and 2008 would not have happened without the long-term See - there's the exception she claims. But really with 37 years of data on arctic sea ice she doesn't really know what the long term is anyway.

To: Sam who wrote (5481)	2/28/2009 3:09:52 PM
From: enginer	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

I don't think you read the post you pointed out to me. It's pretty generally agreed that the rapid re-freezing was "first year ice" and the thawing in the first place was due to unusual wind patterns. Don't believe or trumpet what you read or hear. Use the evidence of your eyes. I am very surprised that the GLOBAL sea ice extent held so nearly constant during the last positive Pacific Decadal Oscillation. There was CERTAINLY no trend towards "melting of the polar ice caps" from'79 to '95, during which time Gore and Hansen went ballistic. The urban heat islands, crappy data (see Wattsup...) and an inertial move of funding accounts for the mistaken consensus.