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 (32746)	6/26/2012 11:12:28 AM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

what's it based on ? what was the PH level in the ocean 200 years ago ? how did they test this ? 150 years ago ? 100 years ago ? they just made up the numbers so the computer models are crap. junk in junk out

To: Land Shark who wrote (32746)	6/26/2012 5:45:35 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 86355

What is "natural" anyways? What "natural" things are driving the climate change that the biologists, climatologists are saying is happening now. That seems to be the question you and your ilk seem to be trying to avoid answering. Which is why Mann attempted to "hide" the MWP. He couldn't assign any anthropogenic causality to it, so he had to act like it didn't matter. Which, IMO, begs the question of why he would even incorporate those time periods as a temperature reference in his tree ring model. But the reality is that there were pine trees growing 3,000 years ago in areas where only due to recent glacial retreat are their stumps seeing the light of day once more. Something caused the warming 3000 years ago that permitted those trees to grow and it wasn't AGW. What's clear to me, and likely all of us who analyze your personal opinions, is that you're willing to ignore all facts, or observations that lead to previous GW, followed by global cooling. You love Paleo-climatic data (usually proxy, not actual) that supports your AGW contention, but when it casts doubt, you throw it out (or try to say the earth is "more sensitive" to CO2 forcing than it was in the past). That's not science.. Hawk