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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (676)	9/3/2011 11:28:01 AM
From: Brumar89	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

I'm sorry, but the hockey stick chart has been discredited. MM discredited it. Wegman et al did too. The IPCC stopped using the chart. Furthermore, we know the graph was created by dropping proxy data and splicing in temperature measurements beginning about 1960 (because the proxy data was going the wrong way after 1960 - something that ought to have given the researchers pause to re-examine the reliability of their proxies). Lastly, we know that the last decade hasn't seen the warming predicted by the chart. It's hard to believe tree ring proxies accurately measured temperatures for 1000 years but suddenly went haywire in modern times. This is what the "trick" mentioned in the climategate emails was about.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (676)	9/3/2011 12:31:12 PM
From: Murrey Walker	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Wharfster, I acknowledge you are the true spokesman for the case of AGW. I know that I have seen comments from you with attributions substantiated at least 100 times on the Environmentalist thread. I quit reading that thread because it began to resemble a broken record. I also read posts (another 100) from others (who are now posting on this thread) refuting your claim substantiating the case AGAINST AGW. It's obvious to me and, I am sure, others on this thread will agree, that minds are not going to be changed. So, why not stop (both POVs) the repetition? Could it be, both sides have valid points, and perhaps this AGW "Balls To The Walls" effort to make this issue "Settled Science", could be moderated just a tiny bit? After all, most folks would agree that Global Warming exists. It's just the degree to which it exists, that seems to be in question. Please, Wharfie, (with some of that silly stuff sprinkled on it), give it a break. And please, you others who feel it necessary to counter post to Wharf's POV, do the same. This thread could be a much better place if there were fewer of the TIRED old talking points aired, over and over. End Of RANT P.s. I love you both, Wharfie & Brumar. ;>)