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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Land Shark who wrote (32509)	6/21/2012 3:58:53 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86356

Hey, are you acknowledging a medieval global warming period which caused temperatures as warm as today?

To: Land Shark who wrote (32509)	6/21/2012 4:37:58 PM
From: sm1th	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

This "second iteration" that you call it, is driven by Anthroprogenic Influence, not other causes which can be fleeting. What drove the first occurance? Scientific facts please.

To: Land Shark who wrote (32509)	6/21/2012 4:58:12 PM
From: russet	3 Recommendations Respond to of 86356

Anthropogenic global warming is not a fact, it is your religion. You have failed to post one study that proves human activities are warming the global average temperatures significantly. All data you have posted contain raw data that has been manipulated in some way to prove a theory. When other scientists get the raw data they cannot repeat the graphs your religion is based on. No one on this thread gives a crap for your wild blubberings. Restrict yourself to posting your crony reviewed studies so we can analyze the results for ourselves.

To: Land Shark who wrote (32509)	6/21/2012 9:29:23 PM
From: Hawkmoon	2 Recommendations Respond to of 86356

This "second iteration" that you call it, is driven by Anthroprogenic Influence, not other causes which can be fleeting. The Anthroprogenic Influence will continue and become irreversible and likely catastrophic if not abated. You guys ALWAYS fail to mention that important scientific FACT. Warming is warming.. How can you possibly know the difference between anthropogenic and "fleeting" natural influences? And the warming trend that has been occurring since the Holocene began is hardly "fleeting", when presented in the time frames that you seem to regard as "relevant". After all, it was you who has tried to claim that, somehow, the earth is more "sensitive" to CO2 than in past history (all with no scientific basis to support such a view).. The reality is that, no matter what the source of warming influence, paleo-climatic history reveals a cycle between extreme temperatures, both warm and cold. Which means at some point we're likely to see a cooling influence. What I wonder is if we're approaching an oncoming cooling period, and we actually may "welcome" AGW for how it mitigates any such natural cooling trend (weak sunspot/solar activity). But you tell us the study of past climatic cycles is "irrelevant" when it clearly is not. Understanding those "fleeting", but EXTREMELY POWERFUL natural influences is CRITICAL to understanding how Anthropogenic influences will alter the climatic trend. And was aptly stated to you in another post.. you cannot differentiate, based upon any scientific evidence, between the Medieval and Current warming trends. If you lack the understanding of what caused the MWT, then you lack any basis for formulating a model on current climatic changes. You cannot simply hide your head in the sand, as Dr. Mann attempted, and act like the MWT didn't occur. That's not science. That's DECEPTION and deceit for the purpose of politicizing science. And science, at it's heart, is supposed to be the anti-thesis of politics and religion. Hawk