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: Wharf Rat who wrote (41739)	8/2/2013 11:48:43 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 86355

Hi Rat; Re: "That is so not the consensus, as much as you'd like it to be." You've provided two links. One was published in the "Insurance Journal". This is not a peer reviewed climate science paper, LOL. The other article is from 2010 and is obsolete. Since then, a lot of new estimates of "climate sensitivity" have been published. As the climate sens I don't doubt that an intelligent person could find a 2013 paper claiming that global warming will cause financial disaster. But that isn't proof of consensus any more than the peer reviewed papers I linked from the other side were evidence of consensus 10 years ago. For the consensus of 2013, you need 2014~2015 papers put together by large groups of scientists. Large collaborations take quite some time to publish so it will be some time before you see these. There will be hints in the next IPCC document. And after the IPCC downplays the threat of global temperature rises you'll still be able to play the "cherry pick" article game. Hey, the official research is that GMOs are not dangerous but I regularly see people put unscientific articles on Facebook. These beliefs will gradually fade away but they'll never go away. Heck, there's a fairly large number of people who believe in advanced alien races that are too stupid to communicate with humans by direct contact so instead they tromp message at night into our crops. To know the consensus now, you'd have to be a lot more closely connected to the climate business than you are. For now, you can only pick up hints that the conensus has shifted. For example, Nature articles being published with "denier" authors that also write posts for Anthony Watt's web page. This sort of thing should be making your head explode but for now, you're too certain in your emotional attachment to your religion. -- Carl