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: longnshort who wrote (19342)

7/9/2012 3:47:29 PM

From: Sdgla

2 Recommendations Respond to of 85487

I found this post from Bilow to LS to be most enlightening. Neither Shark nor Koan will have an answer for his question. Maybe Rat will step up to the table.

Message 28223260

To: Land Shark who wrote (32525)	6/22/2012 10:57:15 PM
From: Bilow	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) of 33182

Hi "Land Shark" Did you actually read the Moberg et al article? On the first page that crap all over Mann's methods of making a hockey stick. That should give you some pause about how good you think climate research really is. On the last page they write: [O]ur findings underscore a need to improve scenarios for future climate change by also including forced natural variability—which could either amplify or attenuate anthropogenic climate change significantly. In other words, the author of your paper say that "anthropogenic climate change" could have to be altered "significantly". That is, the science is not settled, there is "natural variability". Also, when you cite a single article as evidence that the MWP was warmer, you are "cherry picking". There are more papers published showing the reverse. See the full collection of peer reviewed papers here, organized according to the temperature difference they give: co2science.org -- Carl P.S. To find the article, google the title: "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed" + Moberg. Also, when these jokers claim to have estimates of the planet's (or Northern Hemisphere's) temperature for the last 2000 years that are accurate to enough to determine a temperature difference that is around 0.4 degrees, you should first question whether it is possible to measure the planet's current temperature to that accuracy. For example, today Dallas had a high of 99 and a low of 74. That's 25F or about 14 degrees Centigrade. Now tell me, what was the average temperature in Dallas today? Neither you nor anyone else knows this. And yet, if you are to tell me the average temperature of the planet this year you need to amass that kind of data all over the planet. Do you realize that temperatures are different even as close as between the cities of Dallas and Fort-Worth? No one is measuring temperatures in the Middle Ages to an accuracy of 0.4 degrees centigrade. They are not doing it with trees. They are not doing it with thermometers. They are writing papers so they can get published and keep their academic jobs. The cool thing about this sort of science is that there's no actual measurements and so it's not possible to prove their crap wrong. (Alarmist global warming will eventually be proved wrong but it will take another 10 or even 20 years.)