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: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (25181)	9/8/2009 3:37:03 AM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36918

Not so fast. The ice isn't melting, the tide isn't rising due to CO2 as far as we know. Ice has melted a LOT since the melting of the last glaciation which is perhaps still in progress. The tide rose a longggg way and is still rising ever so slightly. <currently the ice is melting, the water rising. If we wait to know the reason we may all be underwater. > Sea level has never been constant. The Lost City of Atlantis was no doubt lost due to continued melt from the last glaciation. Given the lack of objectivity in the Climatologist lingo, it is clear that they are biased which will, of course, be reflected in how they design their computer models. Those who have models which show "All okay folks, nothing to worry about, nothing to see" are not going to be popular in the CO2 panic merchant funding processes so their models had better come up with the goods. Some scientists will do things such as painting a mouse to prove their theory right. That and other science fraud: nytimes.com Mqurice

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (25181)	9/8/2009 3:42:32 AM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36918

The developers of the models are biased, so, it is very unlikely that their models are not: <When you say the models are "biased" are you saying that they have been preprogramed to reach a certain result? And if so--what information are you basing this on?> They can publish their model predictions and we can see how they go compared with reality as reality unfolds. Then we'll see how wrong they are. It doesn't really matter why they are wrong. How many decades has Hansen's model run, without tinkering, and let's see how perfectly his predictions have matched reality? Mqurice