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 : Manmade Global Warming, A hoax? A Scam? or a Doomsday Cult? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Hurst who wrote (2613)	6/6/2011 2:37:43 PM
From: longnshort	5 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4326

How come you ignored this part of the vet's post ?" "Of course if their results came back "not statistically significant" then all that funding will dry up, there are no repeat trips to "confirm" the original results and it's back to a colder and less exotic ivory tower with a much lower academic standing." because you know he's right. With AGW just follow the money. Some of these so called scientists have never had it so good

To: Don Hurst who wrote (2613)	6/7/2011 8:33:34 AM
From: The Vet	4 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4326

Don, like most of the "research" into "global warming", these "scientists" make observations on the effects of higher temperatures, changing sea levels and the other perceived effects of "global warming" but there is never any proven statistically significant research that man or the activities of man has anything to do with those effects. I have no doubt that they observed coral bleaching. It's pretty common and has been seen all over the world on most tropical reefs and it clearly is associated with higher water temperatures. Now none of this "research" makes any contribution to the actual cause of any higher temperatures or even if these temperatures are the result of a statistically significant trend or are just expected normal fluctuations around a steady mean. The jump from observing a natural event and then creating a logical and verifiable trail of evidence from man made CO2 to the observed change hasn't been made, and not one of these "scientists", if challenged, can show that to be the case. Their headlines are emotive and not supported by their actual research papers. I could easily produce figures to show that reduction in animal sacrifices to the gods is also closely correlated to global climate change. Correlation does not prove causation! Why can't you and your ilk get that simple fact?