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: greenspirit who wrote (7068)	1/19/2012 2:35:33 PM
From: Sdgla	Respond to of 85487

Your expectations were correct : He believes it is irrelevant. siliconinvestor.com To: Sdgla who wrote (6870) 1/14/2012 12:20:53 PM From: koan Respond to of 7109 <<How many scientists are there ? Irrelevant, professionals like PEW polling use sample populations which they can then apply statistical methods to, and can predict things to a very high degree of probability. Say you have two acres of land and on one acre you apply fertilizer and on the other you don't, and you want to know if, and how much, the fertilizer had an impact on the crop you are growing. A simple t test will give you a pretty good idea.

To: greenspirit who wrote (7068)	1/19/2012 9:43:00 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

That is politics and you know it. When Einstein put forth his theory of relativity you could have had the entire world sign a petition saying it was nuts. But only a dozen or so people were really qualified to make the determination. And anything less than a PHD in atmospheric chemistry, or a related science, probably should not be counted as it is a very complicated subject. By pure chance, my son in law is one of those PHD scientists (PHD UC Irving/tenured professor)who has studied global warming for over a decade. He communicates with those scientists every day. Believe what you will, but he has told me they know. I asked him the percentage and he said 99%. He was using that as a metaphor for eveyone that is sane or competent to say. Who is the 1%? Hell, most people believe in ghosts and nutso's abound, so you can always get someone to say it is false. Especicallyy of the oil companies are asking them. You can find soemone who says cigarettes and hot dogs are good for you. But what distrunbs me is that the right wing has taken this subject as a mantra i.e. you cannot even run as a Republican if you don't deny AGW e.g. Huntsman. <<Koan, let's try and put a bit of logic into your thinking on this 99% concept. In order to determine whether 99% of a group agrees with a point of view, you first must determine the group. So, a simple question, where is the list of scientists upon which you've arrived at this 99% number. Simple question...And who specifically is a part of the 1% that disagree? These kind of logical questions are what liberals refuse to answer. I expect none less in this response. BTW, as an example, here's what a list looks like.... http://www.petitionproject.org/ http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php

To: greenspirit who wrote (7068)	1/19/2012 10:10:24 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

From a friend. CH4 is 25 times the greenhouse gas as CO2. <<Somebody posted this today. Maybe your son-in-law would like the links.... The best thing I've found are these monthly satellite maps of Arctic methane, but they measure levels pretty high in the troposphere ftp://asl.umbc.edu/pub/yurganov/methane/MAPS/NH/ Compare especially Novembers over the last few years. The methane certainly seems more concentrated this most recent November, but not the vast areas of 2ppm + concentrations one might expect from a really big blowout. [Edit: Ah, I see the December image is now up--and it shows quite strong concentrations over the ESAS as well as the southern-most reaches of the tundra, aka permamelt: ftp://asl.umbc.edu/pub/yurganov/methane/MAPS/NH/ARCTpolar2011.12._AIRS_C... Compare that image with any other December image and you will find it strikingly darker red over these areas this year than any other--something is definitely afoot with Arctic methane this year!]