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 : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Land Shark who wrote (27226)	12/18/2009 2:49:51 PM
From: Elmer Flugum	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

"I'm writing this in a simplistic manner as possible for you simpletons to understand." You make excellent points, Immanuel Kant, don't spoil it all by sinking to name-calling....please. I am on your side in this debate, but lets try to keep to the higher ground and repartee with some style. Thanks, len

To: Land Shark who wrote (27226)	12/18/2009 4:38:59 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

There sure are more things that influence tree growth than temperature - thats why the claims about past temperatures based on tree rings as temperature proxies are worthless. Glad you admit that. Your claim that tree rings were accurate measures of temperature for a 1000 years before 1960 but became unreliable after 1960 is ridiculous. Its so ridiculous the climate scientologists had to hide the failure of tree rings to track with temperature after 1960. 2) Now we have reliable sources of direct measurement of surface temperatures - so who cares about tree rings???? And surface temperatures tell us tree rings are lousy measures of temperature. I'm writing this in a simplistic manner You fail to acknowledge the basic issue .... that tree rings failure to track with temperature after 1960 mean they almost certainly weren't reliable for the past 1000 years either.