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 (14639)	12/6/2009 2:06:36 AM
From: Little Joe	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

“I find it very interesting that you all discount the value of consensus. There is always the possibility of group think and I don't want to discount that either, but science works through the peer review process and more often than not works to weed out papers based on bad data, unscrupulous behavior and outright fraud.” I do know enough about science to understand that the process involved is to advance your theory, not by getting control of the peer review process and by colluding with other scientists of like mind, but by providing your Theory, data and methodology to all, to see if they can duplicate your results. Also , In this case we have no consensus except in the minds of the proponents of global warming alarmists. Anyone who runs a google check knows that by spending a half hour on the inter-net. What is peculiar to me is that the only answer alarmists have to questions is there is a (I contend) non-existent consensus. “Isolated instances of fraud do not invalidate an entire body of evidence over 150 years of science.” We simply do not have an isolated instance of fraud by some obscure scientists as we did in, say, the cold fusion scam. In this case we have repeated fraud by the most prominent purveyors of alarmists “science”. Not only have they hidden the data, they have manipulated it. Their case is based on data, which they and only they are allowed to access and then manipulated to prove their theory. Also NASA another proponent of GW alarmism is probably complicit in some fraud. In 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler. Whatever the fact is that there is FOIA request for the data that has not been provided despite the fact that the request was made 2 years ago. Are we supposed to accept this kind of science. Obviously, they are hiding something. Now I will ask you again. Explain the GWP. without using the word consensus. lj

To: RetiredNow who wrote (14639)	12/6/2009 9:09:54 AM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Consensus is actually very important. If you have 10 scientists that have peer reviewed a paper and 9 out of 10 say they agree with the results, then the probability is very high that the results are accurate. Yup science is science - except to those who don't want to go along for ideological reasons. Much of the world laughs at us for our slip backwards on believing what science tells us.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (14639)	12/6/2009 11:23:46 AM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 86356

It is from the recent article in Nature 2009 Oct 22 p 1066; p1100 ...initiation and rapid expansion of the Antarctic Ice sheet occurred 33 mln years ago at levels of CO2 (750 p.p.m.v )that were more than twice the present-day value.. ..this ice cap survived rise of C02 to the level 1000 p.p.m.v" No correlation between CO2 and Glaciation had been found by this authors but Nature devoted to AGW trying to spin it as a prove. I have paper edition but can not open nature.com from home. I can post on Monday if anybody is interested. Message 26155002