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: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (1633)	9/11/2011 3:06:55 PM
From: Brumar89	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

We can't stand back and just let the scientists do science when there's a network of such persons that are thoroughly politicized and corrupt and letting that affect their work. We can't trust the Hansen's, Trenberth's, Mann's. They're lying and we know it. We read in the climategate emails that they were conspiring to corrupt the peer review process and violate FOI laws. I've posted GISS charts of global temperatures twice now on this thread and anyone can see with the naked eye that the historical temperature record has been corrupted and changed. You can't otoh credibly accuse Lindzen or Spencer or Svensmark of any of those things.

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (1633)	9/11/2011 4:06:24 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	8 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 85487

I second what Brumar said. Climategate confirmed the charges of the skeptics that the science itself has been politicized and corrupted by a cabal of AGW alarmists. The reason? One they themselves touted in the 1990s: we can't wait until we have proof, the stakes are too high, they said. So they turned their thesis into orthodoxy. Climate science became climate religion. So we can't leave it to the scientists until we break the cabal. Only then can the scientists make their arguments. The charges again Hansen, Trenberth, and Mann are backed by evidence marshaled by scientists like Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen. In return, they get ad hominems about being paid for by Exxon, as if the money flows weren't hugely on the other side. The hounding of critics, the yells about "the science is settled" and "consensus" should give you a hint that they AGW alarmists do not actually have solid evidence on their side. If they had, they would produce the evidence. I don't know where George W. Bush comes into this. The whole argument predates Bush. And Hansen still has his government job, doesn't he? So how is it Bush's fault? Because he agreed with the entire US Senate that Kyoto was a lousy idea?

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (1633)	9/11/2011 5:01:46 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Now both of you have chosen to promote the right's point of view on the matter. Why, only you both know, but it's not because you intrinsically understand the science itself--although you apparently understand the lay arguments about the politics of it and the case of the AGW. One thing that I think is very important to understand is that we don't have to intrinsically understand the science itself to be able to find flaws in the scientific case. Here are a couple of points that are meaningful 1. The case for global warming is based on 150 years of data. A meaningless timeframe geologically speaking. 2. The 150 years of data begins at the low point of a cycle (the little ice age) where one would expect to see warming in subsequent years. 3. We are currently in what is known as an inter-glacial period. We are locked in a glacial/interglacial cycle due in large part to the continental configuration. A large land mass floating over either pole along with continents stretching virtually from pole to pole and blocking ocean currents ensures this. We are currently at the tail and of the interglacial period where you would expect to see warmer temperatures along with lowered ice coverage. When we see the global warming case being made because we had the hottest year in 75 years, what that means is that 75 years ago it was as hot or hotter. And that those temperatures were there when there was less atmospheric CO2 than there is now. This negates the AGW argument. And I don't need to look at the climate models while intrinsically understanding every component. I can see the contradictions right there on the surface. And the climategate emails just confirm what is already out there in the open. And the fact that the models can't come close to predicting anything about the climate, it says that the climatologists haven't figured everything out and therefore the science most certainly cannot be settled.