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 (2170)	9/20/2011 3:28:44 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	5 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 85487

"IOW, the models are now obsolete and need updating." That is your opinion, which is why you aren't a climatologist, or any kind of a scientist at all. Guess you didn't read Nir Shaviv, who is a climatologist. He clearly thinks there is now enough evidentiary weight behind the cosmic ray theory that models which simply ignore it (as all the IPCC models do) are incomplete. The problem for the IPCC models, of course, is that any significant amount of cloud formation or non-formation due to a factor so entirely independent of CO2 wreaks havoc with their pet theory. It won't do at all if CO2 turns out to be a minor factor in global warming, or if global warming itself is in doubt. They have staked their reputations on the AGW crisis being both real and imminent. Which is starting to leave Hansen in the position of the millennial preacher who has to keep recalculating the date of the End Times because they don't arrive on the date he first predicted. You don't need a degree in climatology to diagnose bull--- in industrial quantities being spewed by a massive media propaganda organ. Just logic and observation enough to tell when evidence manifestly does not live up to the claims being made -- when evidence can be shown to have been fabricated -- and yet the conclusion you are told to believe in never changes with the evidence. When the main thesis has become unfalsifiable in public discussions, that's when you know you are no longer dealing with science at all, but ideology or religion. Then you can ask cui bono? and come to the appropriate conclusions. BTW, what kind of scientist are you?