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: koan who wrote (42960)	9/7/2013 11:53:50 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

What other tools are there? You say there are other tools. Are you lying or just repeating some impression from your SIL. The pro is 100% speculative radiative forcing of CO2 that cannot be measured directly as the effect is some number of parts in a million or millions. toms.homeip.net toms.homeip.net/global_warming/ you will find several years of information I have collected. What serious consideration have you given? What experience do you have to evaluate any science? Who are your 97%? climatedebatedaily.com, 4% of articles are Con Science and 1% are kinda attempts at pro science.

To: koan who wrote (42960)	9/7/2013 12:20:53 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 86356

Well as such a self proclaimed expert on probability. You say i am ignorant because I donot understand probability. Well why don't you expand on what the hell are you babbling about. What probability. The probability that a 1 part change in 10,000 of CO2 will do what. Now that as compared with this chart of H20 water vapor I derived.

To: koan who wrote (42960)	9/7/2013 12:34:35 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86356

Hi koan; Re: "When 97% of the top climatologists believe something to be true and a danger* ..."; What you're stating is not true. That is, even the biased papers (that show the results of polls and literature examinations that are controlled by true believers in warmist fantasies) do not show that 97% of the top climatologists believe that global warming is "a danger". For example, here's a typical warmist paper on the subject, note no mention of the word "danger": Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature* iopscience.iop.org Adding the "danger" has been done by the media and interested parties for a variety of reasons. The media likes an exciting story, it helps sell sugar water and toilet cleaners. And the interested parties hype their research. To support your point, what you want is a poll taken of top climatologists showing that they believe that we should "have an expensive carbon tax" or "make using coal illegal" or whatever other political goal you're looking to support. But you don't have that. Instead, plenty of top scientists have stated that global warming, though real, is not a danger and plenty have stated that climate change is largely a consequence of natural changes. You can visit the wikipedia page to learn more: en.wikipedia.org -- Carl