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: RetiredNow who wrote (14404)	11/30/2009 8:33:48 PM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Peer review didn't uncover the fraud. An unathorized leak to the public did. When enough scientists review the data and are unable to reproduce the results or when enough scientists ask for the empirical data and are denied, then the results in question are discredited. Thats whats happening now. Furthermore, the idea that peer review proves that a paper is TRUTH is invalid as well ... even when peer review is working the way it should it only shows that peers in the field thought the paper worth publishing. It never was a gold seal of approval - yes, this paper is TRUTH and no criticism is warranted. mindmeld=> Of course, this is true as well, but I'll point out something slightly different. No science proves 100% that anything is "TRUE". All science does is allow us to form theories that fit a data set. The better the theory, the more of the data it explains. So the best we can ever hope for in science is that we can explain most of the data and use it to predict what may happen in the future with a high degree of probability. At this point, its timely to point out AGW hasn't been able to predict the future with a high degree of probability. The burden of proof should exist on those making a claim - in this case the claim that CO2 from fossil fuels will cause environmental catastrophe. Thats true in any field, not just science. mindmeld=> Again, this is a true statement and many different fields of science have come to the conclusion that there exists a VERY high probability that humans are the primary cause of the rise in net CO2 emissions and that CO2 increases are the primary cause of global warming. All of the data from multiple disciplines support this conclusion. That CO2 is the primary factor is not a strong conclusion by vast numbers of scientists in many fields. The vast majority of AGW acceptors, including scientists, are relying on a relatively small number of individuals in key positions. Many of them named in the recently leaked emails. However, the alternative theory that the GOP and you propagate isn't supported by the data On the contrary, the solar theory is supported by scientists basing their opinions on data. In fact, the founder of the CRU was a proponent of this his entire life (he died in 1997). and your constituents have not been able to disprove the scientific consensus. The concensus is bogus. An attempt to convince people by arguing from authority. Furthermore, its not necessary to DISPROVE anything, merely to show the CO2 theory is unproven. The fact the CO2 theory has a lousy prediction record is evidence against all by itself. So the scientific process is working properly, despite the few bad apples. You just fail to accept the outcome. The only thing working is the work of skeptics like Steve McIntyre and many others. mindmeld=> The solar cycle theory as a primary root cause has been debunked. It most certainly has NOT. The solar cycles that Lamb believed in were superceded by rewriting climate history so that the temperatures were held to be essentialy flat till this century. The proxy based studies that produced this have generally actually been debunked - Mann's bristlecone pines and Briffa's dozen or so trees on the Yamal peninsula. All the latest climate change models include solar cycles in their equations, but solar cycles don't explain the anomalies that we are seeing in the warming of the planet. Of course they do. The warming in the 1920's and 1930's. The following decline through the 1970's. The subsequent renewed warming through 1998 and the cooling since. This all smacks of a cyclical process. Both short-term and longer-term temperature cycles correlate with solar cycles. motls.blogspot.com hubpages.com Message 25424010 CO2 increases, on the other hand, explain most of the anomaly, after all other factors including solar cycles are taking into account. That is what the scientific consensus is. Nonsense, you have to disregard the actual history of the past decade to say that.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (14404)	12/1/2009 12:29:44 AM
From: Little Joe	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

"All the latest climate change models include solar cycles in their equations, but solar cycles don't explain the anomalies that we are seeing in the warming of the planet. CO2 increases, on the other hand, explain most of the anomaly, after all other factors including solar cycles are taking into account. That is what the scientific consensus is." Are you talking about the climate change models that failed to predict the recent cooling, or are there models that I am not aware of? Is this so called "scientific consensus" based on data which now appears to be manipulated or some other data independent of CRU? Last but not least, why is it that global warming proponents always come back to the argument that there is a "scientific consensus". Seems to me that there are plenty of skeptics out there. Seems to me that if there were an explanation, we would have learned about it by now. lj Why can't they explain , for example, the MWP, without resorting to the claim that a scientific consensus exists