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 (14898)	12/8/2009 8:26:31 PM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

I'm sorry but you're just pretending to expertise you obviously don't have.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (14898)	12/8/2009 8:52:19 PM
From: russet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

It is doubtful real statisticians would find any significant correlations of CO2 with temperature over the last century given the warming of the earth has been going on since the last true ice age 10000 years ago. Little temperature blips of a few degrees that are occurring now would be found to be totally insignificant. Clearly CO2 levels had little or nothing to do with the melting of over a kilometer thick sheet of glacier that covered the Northern Hemisphere a handful of millennia ago. A statistical correlation might magically appear when someone ignorant of true statistical theory does multiple analyses using different time periods until they find one that proves their CO2 theory. Of course even that is in question now because of poor sampling techniques and the emails indicating data has been massaged and even thrown away to get the necessary correlation to prove the theory. No statistical textbook would allow you to perform those types of manipulations on data sets. Science, statistical of otherwise, is not driving the current mania on CO2 and global warming.