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: Archie Meeties who wrote (15152)	12/13/2009 9:45:44 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 86350

Whats being sought and is hard to get is the specific data behind the studies* being used as support for CO2 regulation. People who've looked at unadjusted weather data have found either less warming than trumpeted or an absence of warming. Thats why the adjusted data is suspect and why the data and adjustments behind it need to be examined. For example, that Briffa's Yamal study was based on 12 cherry picked trees. 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.* I don't think theres a point at issue here, Everyone knows CO2 is a longlived greenhouse gas. BTW no climate models forecast catastrophe only on the basis of CO2. Rather CO2 is held to trigger positive feedback effects that further increase ie magnify the impact of CO2. Some people even use terms like "tipping point" and "runaway warming" implying that warming will simply take off and continue to increase expotentially. In fact the nature of feedback effects, even the net direction, isn't well understood and the climate models use weakly supported assumptions. Since the earth has been warmer in the past there would seem to be no true worries about "runaway warming" or "tipping points". That is just scare-mongering aimed at the ignorant. if AGW denier had a scientific little toe to stand on, there would be some model of climate they could point to It isn't incumbent on skeptics to create their own rival climate models to say the current ones are shoddy.