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 : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (96807)	4/22/2009 1:13:00 AM
From: koan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

With all due respect that is simply wrong. Scientists look at the data and draw scientific conclusions. They do not try to defend ideas. You have them confused with politicians-lol. They do not care one wit what the answer is, only that it is correct. Their reputation's among other sceintists is at stake. In fact they take it too far. I once spent a month on the Miller Freeman in the Bearing Sea with a scientific crew studying crab migrations. Scientists will shun ones who are careless or crazy. And they compete for answers, like the double helex. My son in law says they are pretty damn sure about global warming. I guarantee you the examples you bring up have been gone over many times, with satelites! I got hired to do the statistics. It looked like the two species of Snow crab, Opillio and Bardi interbred and had a hybrid. It was as clear as day to me. Opillio have flat mouths and bardi's mouths look like a M. Every scientist on the ship was scared to death to even theorize. As I say, unless a person can tell the difference between a methane molecule from the Brazilian jungle and a methane molecule from the artic, a person is simply not qualified to comment on globla warming. >> I don't have much regard for those researchers who have already formed an opinion and are now bent upon skewing all available data to back it up. GW'rs are very representative of this, IMO. They spend inordinate amounts of time and money telling us about the dangers of CO2, while ignoring the paleo-climatic record which indicates CO2 levels were FAR HIGHER in the past. They also ignore the fact that biological consumers of CO2, in particular oceanic phytoplankton, have been depleting by up to 30% over the past 20 years. Reduce the ability to absorb atmospheric CO2 and "voila", you suddenly have increased atmospheric levels.<<

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (96807)	4/22/2009 1:58:01 AM
From: Sea Otter	4 Recommendations Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 116555

Those "GW'rs" are, in fact, the scientific community, back by thousands of peer-reviewed studies. Sorry, that's just a simple fact. ipcc.ch You might disagree with the scientific consensus. You might want to believe that every single atmospheric scientist and biochemist on the planet somehow forgot the paleo-climatic record. ("OMG Dr Smith - we forgot the prehistoric CO2 levels in our study! Why didn't we LISTEN to Rush before publishing our findings?). Go for it. Who knows - maybe you'll even turn out to be right. Wouldn't that be cool? You can tell your grandkids you out-thought thousands of Nobel Laureates and acclaimed scientists: sciencedaily.com But to somehow pretend that GW is just a small group of lefties headed by Al Gore as opposed to virtually every credible scientist on the planet... now, THAT's clear denial of the data. You're guilty of the very thing you're accusing others.