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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (752283)	11/11/2013 4:16:20 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575760

Not sure where you got your charts, but you seem to have forgotten to include the most recent figures. You see that little hockey stick spike in recent times, that you so conveniently didn't include in your charts? Actually, I do see the spike in the CO2 levels. And I did note that the CO2 levels are higher now than they were in previous inter-glacials. Did you notice that, though the CO2 levels are higher now than previous inter-glacials by a good 30%, that our average global temperature is actually lower than the previous four inter-glacial periods? Isn't temperature what we are talking about? We know that man has added to the concentration of the trace gas CO2 in our atmosphere. That's actually pretty easy to prove. It's that giant leap to CO2 causing meaningful and harmful warming. That chart that you posted, like the other tidbits of evidence that you actually did post, support all of my statements and pretty much negate everything you have said. But like you said, to some people, this topic is a religion. They aren't looking at the evidence, they just look to the scientists in their ivory tower and believe whatever the scientists tell them to believe, regardless of the numerous contradictions and inaccuracies that the climate-ologists have presented.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (752283)	11/11/2013 10:19:32 PM
From: Bilow	2 Recommendations Recommended By Brumar89 d[-_-]b Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575760

Hi mindmeld; When you see two variables that correlate with one another there are three natural things to conclude. A causes B, B causes A, or something else causes both of them. But in your graph, CO2 and temperature have appraently become decoupled: simpleclimate.files.wordpress.com In the case of CO2 and temperatures, your graph shows that CO2 can't cause temperature. If it did, instead of experiencing 0.5 degrees of temperature rise, according to the scale on your charts we should be seeing about 8 degrees C of temperature rise, LOL. When they saw the graph you're showing, and they made the critical assumption that CO2 drives temperatures, you can see how convinced the alarmists were that temperatures would keep on rising. When temperatures failed to rise, the alarmists were totally surprised. They had no backup plan. That's why they're completely at sea, with one alarmist making speculations that are incompatible with the next. So of course people no longer believe the predictions. The alarmists were so completely surprised by the pause that they're all spouting different "explanations". And since the explanations are incompatible as in "oh it went into the ocean", "oh this is natural variation", "oh temperatures are still going up", nobody believes you anymore. Y'all can't keep your stories (excuses) straight. -- Carl