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 (14530)	12/2/2009 9:27:09 PM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

So all I'm saying is that if you deny the globe is warming and that is your theory, then prove it with data and let it be peered reviewed. lol Like the man made global warming fraudsters did? They threw away the original data and programmed the models for the outcome they wanted.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (14530)	12/3/2009 12:03:52 AM
From: The Vet	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Then they point to the last 10 years and say that is proof. However, they ignore the steady increase over the decades prior to that and the relatively sharp increase in the last 50 years Again mindmeld you have fallen into your own trap. There is no doubt that the attention given the subject has resulted in far better records and attention to measurement than in the prior 50 years, but the data from the prior 50 and earlier are ESSENTIAL in establishing a trend That data was NOT available to all and what was available was shamelessly manipulated by the "scientists" who had that access and they modified, adjusted and discarded any of it that didn't suit their agenda and refused to make the data or their methods available for verification. By modifying the history, the scoundrels at CRU and IPCC have shifted the base line for all of the science that followed and rendered it valueless even though it was produced in good faith.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (14530)	12/3/2009 12:22:11 AM
From: Little Joe	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

"So all I'm saying is that if you deny the globe is warming and that is your theory, then prove it with data and let it be peered reviewed. Empty criticism of someone else's theory doesn't bring you credibility." I don't agree. The way I understand Science works is that you put forth your theory and you provide your data and methodology and you subject it to scrutiny from other scientists. The fact that they conclude that your evidence is not sufficient to prove your theory, does not mean that they have to prove some other competing theory. They just have to shoot holes in your theory. For, example, I am still waiting for someone to explain the MWP,without using the words scientific consensus. I was particularly amused by the fact that Holdren claims that there is nothing in the documents that causes him to question the alarmists theory. There is certainly too much material to review and evaluate, than could have been considered since the info was leaked. Clearly at the least, this leaked information will have to be thoroughly evaluated before any conclusions can be reached as to what it means. The fact that he is willing to dismiss the evidence without review. clearly shows where he is coming from. lj

To: RetiredNow who wrote (14530)	12/3/2009 9:52:45 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

You wrote: "Then they point to the last 10 years and say that is proof. " I assume you are reflecting the sentiment of the Hoax deniers: Mr. Holdren and Jane Lubchenco, administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said such temperature dips were natural fluctuations. The 10 warmest years recorded since 1880 have all occurred within the past 12 years, they said. They added that the U.S. average temperature has risen more than two degrees Fahrenheit over the past 50 years Yet this is proven to be false in the corrected and demanipulated data: NASA says 6 of the 10 hottest years in the US came before 1954: 1934 1998 1921 2006 1931 1999 1953 1990 1938 1939