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: Maurice Winn who wrote (25733)	11/11/2009 4:45:42 PM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Point taken, Maurice. I can't respond to the priesthood analogy because I have no background context for it. It sounds like what you're saying is that in your "experience" environmental scientists are "biased" toward the green side of the fence. Concede that in this example there is no data to confirm the PCP presence in fish tissue one way or the other.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (25733)	12/14/2009 3:47:20 PM
From: Maurice Winn	2 Recommendations Respond to of 36917

Mq you are remarkably prescient. Posting that 11 November, just before the David Koresh, Jim Jones type of Climate Scientists were exposed to the world in the emails. Those so-called scientists are worse than it seems because they will have kept their emailing to a very civil level of discourse with what they think of as the highest scientific principles - which shows just how low their true standards are. I can now make scientific predictions about Global Warm-mongers using the Settled Science which shows Greenhouse Effect believers are more dishonest than normal people. Doing The Science the right way around, here is the prediction. Peter Laut is wrong and Friis-Christensen is right. Paul Crutzen is wrong and so is Professor Stefan Rahmsmstorf and Henrik Svensmark is also right. This is an obvious case of dishonest Global Warm-mongers attacking some Denialists. Who? What? Here is an article in The New Zealand Herald. nzherald.co.nz Sunspot theory for warming planet is shot down in flames By Steve ConnorView as one page 4:00 AM Tuesday Dec 15, 2009 Studies linking solar activity with rising temperatures are a scientific flashpoint. Photo / Nasa Leading scientists, including a Nobel Prize-winner, have rounded on studies used by climate sceptics to show that global warming is a natural phenomenon connected with sunspots, rather than the result of the man-made emissions of carbon dioxide. The researchers - all experts in climate or solar science - say the scientific evidence continually cited by sceptics to promote the idea of sunspots being the cause of global warming is deeply flawed. Studies published in 1991 and 1998 claimed to establish a link between global temperatures and solar activity - sunspots - and continue to be cited by climate sceptics, including those who attended an "alternative" climate conference in Copenhagen last week. However, problems with the data used to establish the correlation have been identified by other experts and the flaws are now widely accepted by the scientific community, even though the studies continue to be used to support the idea that global warming is "natural". The issue has gained new importance in the light of opinion polls showing that nearly one in two people now believe global warming is a natural phenomenon unconnected with CO2 emissions. Public distrust of the accepted explanation of global warming has been exacerbated by emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, which appeared to suggest that scientists were engaged in a conspiracy to suppress contrarian views. Many sceptics who accept that global temperatures have risen in recent decades suggest it is part of the climate's natural variability and could be accounted for by normal variations in the activity of the sun. Powerful support for this idea came in 1991 when Eigil Friis-Christensen, director of the Danish National Space Centre, published a study showing a remarkable correlation between global warming and the length of sunspot cycles. A further study published in 1998 by Mr Friis-Christensen and his colleague Henrik Svensmark suggested a possible explanation for the warming trend with a link between solar activity, cosmic rays and the formation of clouds. But many scientists now believe both of these studies are seriously flawed, and that when errors introduced into the analysis are removed, the correlations disappear, with no link between sunspots and global warming. Peter Laut, a former adviser to the Danish Energy Agency who first identified the flaws, said there were practically no observations to support the idea that variations in sunspots played more than a minor role in global warming. Mr Laut's analysis of the flaws is accepted by most scientists familiar with the research, including Paul Crutzen, an atmospheric chemist at the Max Planck Institute in Germany, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on understanding the hole in the ozone layer. "There is definitely a problem [with these studies]. "Laut has really pinned it down but the [sunspot] argument keeps reappearing and it's quite irritating," Professor Crutzen said. Professor Stefan Rahsmstorf, of Potsdam University, agreed. "I've looked into this quite closely and I'm on Laut's side in terms of his analysis of the data." Some scientists believe the papers should not be allowed to stand. Messrs Svensmark and Friis-Christensen stand by their studies and continue to believe there is evidence to support their sunspot theory of global warming, despite the doubts first raised by Laut. "It's not a critique of the science or the correlations, it's a critique of person," Mr Friis-Christensen said. "It's a character assassination. [Laut] is not interested in the science, he's interested in promoting the idea Henrik did something unethical."> The Settled Science is that Greens are more dishonest than regular people. That's because of moral preening for show, to themselves and others. There was some science experiments reported on that just a few days ago which showed the effect. I can't find it just now. But some more Googling or looking through recent newspapers would get it. Note that the article in The Greenhouse Herald leads people to believe that the sun-spot theory is now established as extinguished but there is a hint in the article that it is not. This is a continuing replay of the David Koresh/Jim Jones/Hale-Bopp type Climate Science. Only a couple of weeks after the exposure of all the emails and they repeat what led them to the muck. This confirms The Science again. They can't help themselves. We can conclude: 1.....Climate so-called scientists are really numismatists with some statistical skills [not very good statistical skills at that] rather than scientists. Al Gore saying "These are my scientists" is like Tiger Woods saying "This is my wife". 2.....Friis-Christensen and Hendrik Svensmark are right and Peter Laut, Professor Crutzen and Professor Stefan Rahsmstorf are Greenhouse crooks. 3.....Sun-spots and high solar activity heat Earth up [Well duh!! You reckon?] as predicted byEigel Friis-Christensen, Hendrik Svensmark 4.....Sol is at an 1812 minimum as predicted by Mq the Marvelous October last year and will remain at a low for a couple of cycles at least, with the low being down at 1812 levels [the level when Napoleon got bogged down in snow while raiding Moscow - he hadn't studied the sun-spot cycles]. Using 20:20 foresight, Mq the M has predicted reglaciation initiation at the next solar minimum in 2020. Mqurice