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: Little Joe who wrote (15146)	12/13/2009 2:10:09 AM
From: Eric	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 86350

But if global warming is not a scam, the people behind it shouldn't act like scammers. Real simple the data should be available to anyone who wants it and the computer code and other supporting documentation should liekwise be available. That is my understanding of how science is conducted these alarmists seem to think you need to go to court to get the data. I am shocked that anyone who calls themselves a scientist would accept research from a person or organization that refused to make it data and methodologies public, the the alarmists don't provide the information, and they demonize their opponents. This is how politics is conducted not science. There are thousands of folks working on the science of global warming in many countries. Weather data is available from many sources, especially here in the U.S. It's public information. It's not hard to get. This stuff is peer reviewed before it can be published. From what I've seen of the emails a lot has been taken out of context and in the end a lot of folks who threw "mud" on this are going to look pretty stupid. Time will tell. From what I've seen on Fox News has been a disappointment. For someone such as myself who worked in broadcasting I am disgusted that they threw good journalism out the window.

To: Little Joe who wrote (15146)	12/13/2009 2:33:05 AM
From: Archie Meeties	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86350

Data Sources realclimate.org I wonder where you got the notion that the data isn't available? TV? Not only is the raw data available, you should also consider this salient fact: Every climate model that exists incorporates CO2 as a long lived greenhouse gas. There doesn't exist one that doesn't. They can't create such a model, the data doesn't allow it. The data is publically available, so if AGW denier had a scientific little toe to stand on, there would be some model of climate they could point to supporting their theory. As it is, there is none - zero! It's as if somebody were to say; mosquitoes do not carry malaria, they absolutely do not! And then you would ask them - well then, here is the data showing that people get symptoms of malaria after contact with a mosquito that carries the parasite, so if it's not mosquitoes, then what does carry malaria? - and the response would be "hell if I know, I just know that mosquitoes don't". This email thing is basically seperating out the illinformed from those who have done their homework - I'm talking about politicians. The average Joe can be excused for being confused by the 50million dollar capaign various industries are running to question some rather boring and well established science. The debate has been over in scientific circles for a decade at least.