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: Alex MG who wrote (761025)	1/2/2014 10:30:21 PM
From: average joe	1 Recommendation Recommended By joseffy Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575608

You earn some points for being a true believer. To have that much faith in something that flies in the face of the evidence in front of your nose takes a special kind, up here we call those kind village idiots...

To: Alex MG who wrote (761025)	1/3/2014 3:24:21 AM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 1575608

Hi Alex MG; Nice chart. Unfortunately for alarmists, it shows that the warming trend we're in now started in 1910. That's about 70 years too early for your theory, LOL. The massive CO2 increases began around the 1970s and couldn't possibly have effected the earth's temperature that long ago: Your chart is used by our side to show that the earth's temperature has always been going up and down. You should look at the charts (that have similar accuracy) going back 10,000 years. Fact is that you live on a planet that has weather that changes with every time scale from daily up to several hundred thousand years (where the ice age / interglacial cycle dominates) . This is why you can't get statistical evidence for global warming from graphs like this. Instead, the "experts" talk about "climate models" which, as the leak known as climategate shows, are shoddy pieces of badly written code that is rewritten and rewritten until it comes up with something that agrees with the author, and then published as if it's the final judgement on science. And those models were pretty convincing until the last 20 years when they failed to predict the "pause". In short, this is why your side lost this argument. Dude, it is over. -- Carl