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 for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (337718)	12/8/2009 10:38:46 AM
From: koan	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793597

Sorry, wrong thread. Previous article was reposted to another thread and I responded to the wrong poster. I didn't mean to upset this thread which I know has much different ideas than I. My apologies!

To: koan who wrote (337718)	12/8/2009 10:47:54 AM
From: Murrey Walker	8 Recommendations Respond to of 793597

You mention your Phd SIL has studied global WARMING (as opposed to global climatology) for over a decade at major north western universities. That, by inference would lead one to believe his mind was certainly made up. You further state that… "there are a zillion of them and his colleagues pay no attention to them. He says "global warming scentists are pretty sure of their data. Didn't realize there were a zillion global warming scientists out there. And they're PRETTY sure? Wow! That's PRETTY scary when you think about the implications of PRETTY EXPENSIVE EXPENDITURES going forward.

To: koan who wrote (337718)	12/8/2009 10:53:08 AM
From: Bearcatbob	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793597

To model Atmospheric conditions one must know computers so that garbage = garbage out does not become national policy.

To: koan who wrote (337718)	12/8/2009 10:55:00 AM
From: Little Joe	3 Recommendations Respond to of 793597

"Understanding global warming is like brain surgery. It is very complicated, specific, and involves a science far removed from computer science." What's to understand if the facts contradict your theory just fudge the data and manipulate the computer program. It is amazing to me that the GW alarmists, even after climate gate see no reason to question the science at all. We have conclusions based on data that was destroyed and what we have left has been massaged beyond recognition, but what the hell, we all know there is a scientific consensus. In the meantime they still cant explain the MWP and continue to ignore the problem. Well I expected nothing different. lj

To: koan who wrote (337718)	12/8/2009 11:00:03 AM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 793597

In fact no one understands global climate. The people who claim they do and are prescribing radical interventions are like a 12th century barber trying to perform brain surgery. Yea he knows there's a brain. Yea he knows it's inside the head. Yea he knows it's important. No, he shouldn't be messing with it.

To: koan who wrote (337718)	12/8/2009 1:02:47 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Respond to of 793597

If your SIL denies there was a MWP, he's an idiot.

To: koan who wrote (337718)	12/8/2009 1:04:59 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793597

Understanding global warming is like brain surgery. It is very complicated, specific, and involves a science far removed from computer science. Actually, a climatologist (not a global warming scientist) is collating a lot of different sciences rather than being a expert in one. Atmospheric Chemistry is one component, but it is by no means the only or even the most important component. If we move Antarctica off of the south pole we will have a much warmer planet no matter what the atmospheric chemistry is. If we eliminate the land bridge at the panama canal we would also have a much different climate. A little thing like ocean currents can really change things dramatically. Then you have to factor in the biogenic inputs and clouds and water vapor and.....basically, climatologists ware project managers. And if the project managers aren't managing the inputs into their project well inputting bad data and making stuff up then you get bad results. By massaging the data to such extremes the climatologists prove that they are not "pretty sure of their data."

To: koan who wrote (337718)	12/8/2009 2:11:42 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	12 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793597

When I mention articles like the one above downplaying man made global warming to him he says: "there are a zillion of them and his colleagues pay no attention to them. He says "global warming scentists are pretty sure of their data. They shouldn't be, because those in charge of the data have been cooking the books! There are smoking guns all over the data that get exposed any time someone gets at the raw data to compare it with the adjusted data. Now supposedly the data has been adjusted only to remove inhomogeneities, but Willis Eschenbach and Professor Wibjorn Karlen, to name only two, find remarkable anomalies between the their own surveys and adjustments of raw data and the IPCC version - with the IPCC version adding in a whole degree C of spurious late 20th cen warming. And when they applied to Phil Jones at CRU for his data and methods to explain the discrepancies, they got the runaround. Now Dr. Jones says they can't have the raw data because he threw it away! This is not the behavior of scientists who are on the up-and-up. This is the behavior of scientists who know they are torturing the data to make it fit their pet theory. Before Climategate, I only doubted the models, since they couldn't predict our current lack of warming. Now I doubt all the data the IPCC touches. I notice the moveable feast at Copenhagen is now claiming that warming is continuing unabated. This has devolved into "who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"

To: koan who wrote (337718)	12/8/2009 2:53:49 PM
From: TideGlider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793597

So much for your political mind ROFLMAO!...or any mind at all. Message 26126389 bed To: Wharf Rat who wrote (65548) 11/24/2009 11:39:00 PM From: koan of 66419 I am would really like to spend a night with PELOSI. I will bet she is a 10 in bed!

To: koan who wrote (337718)	1/3/2010 6:09:06 PM
From: mph	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793597

And what were Al Gore's credentials to lecture us about global warming? I'd like to play poker with you.

To: koan who wrote (337718)	1/3/2010 7:09:53 PM
From: Bearcatbob	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793597

Hi Charles, Of course your statement below is nonsense. "That is such a silly article. J Storrs Hall has a PHD in computer science from Rutgers. That is very impressive, but not very relevant to atmospheric chemistry." It is the computer models that take the "science" and make projections of what the science means. Ignoring the modeling aspect is just an act of trickery. Modeling has been one of the areas where the weakness of the GW has been revealed - eg hockey stick! As for your SIL and others - while the guy may be saintly - he remains in my eyes a simple member of the profiteer class. Bob