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: Brumar89 who wrote (2425)	9/21/2011 12:41:09 PM
From: Land Shark	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

>At present, they've admitted (they meant to keep it secret - thank you climategate leaker) that the failure to predict the absence of global warming is a big problem. But instead of examining their premises, they're ginning up new model scenarios that say the missing heat "may" be hiding in the deep ocean (where we conveniently can't measure it). They don't explicitly say it IS hiding there. They say our models say it can be. The leap from 'may' or 'can' to 'is' is implicit - the headline writers do that for them. The models are state of the art. These are the best that science can come up with. It's impossible to put every variable, sink or source into them. They're accurate enough to be of value for regulations. Deniers love to pick on model weaknesses to dismiss the entire science. Science has come out saying AGW is unequivocally happening. Why don't they accept it? It's convenient for them to dismiss science that calls for some regulatory action on emissions. That's why. They're in a fundamental conflict of interest situation. Herein lies the moral turpiitude. It's a sociopathic pattern of denial and apathy.