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 : Manmade Global Warming, A hoax? A Scam? or a Doomsday Cult? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Hurst who wrote (3586)	1/15/2014 12:20:33 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Recommended By Bill Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4326

"Yesterday's NY Times Science Section had a lead article re what is happening with Norfolk Va as the sea rises, the land sinks " did the great scientific minds of the NY Times tell you that Norfolk is a swamp, a bog where the Chesapeake Bay, the elizabeth River and ocean met where all that silt has drained out for 1000s of years. Where the Dismal Swamp is. do you know what happens to land like that when you build on it ? it sinks, but nice try for the NY Times, they did fool you and people like you.

To: Don Hurst who wrote (3586)	1/15/2014 2:12:05 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	3 Recommendations Recommended By gamesmistress J.B.C. weatherguru Respond to of 4326

I don't argue scientific facts with posters who throw out baloney particularly when they get their "facts" from Creationists and deniers such as Spenser and deniers such as Watts... you are dismissing sources based on your bias rather than the validity of their position. This is not a scientific approach to taking a position. I can't really offer an opinion about the creationists that you are referring to, but it sounds like you are dismissing their views because of your own bias. Creationists hold their view on the inception of everything based on faith. Their faith says that God says it happened "this way". I can understand why you might dismiss their views on evolution, but though I am no bible scholar, I am almost certain that the bible doesn't say anything about AGW. And though you won't believe this, there are huge leaps of faith that are required to accept the scientific explanation for the beginning of the universe and/or life. The interesting thing is that the fundamental flaw in both the scientific and faith based explanations are the same. Once you understand that both approaches start at the same unanswered question, it becomes intellectually dishonest to dismiss someone's opinion on other matters simply because they accept certain explanations based on faith. I have an engineering degree and a fairly decent background in the computer world but I am not a climatologist so I let those that really know what is happening plus other sources provide the facts for me...that is one of your sides big problems...you have the naysayers on this board who are driven by their far right political ideologies and now and then you have someone such as Lindzen; who btw, was still spouting in 2000, the "benefits"...OK, he was denying the connection between smoking and cancer...for petes sake. Actually, those "facts" that you are basing your own position on are actually opinions. Further, they are opinions that are based on raw information that, in many cases, can be proven to be false, incomplete or irrelevant. Further, The models that were developed to support the AGW position have completely failed to have any predictive ability. It takes a special kind of intellectual dishonesty to maintain the CAGW position when, not only the raw data is blatantly manipulated and obviously false, but the models on which all of the hysteria is based have failed. You accuse the skeptics of being driven by far right ideologies, which implies that you don't believe that your views are driven by your own far left ideologies. When the left defers to the "experts"...the climatologists, ultimately they are absolving themselves of responsibility. I see this a lot in business. Everyone wants to hire a consultant who will provide a bunch of expert information to support the decision that someone has already made. But this way, if they are wrong they can point their finger back at the consultant. Or they will form a committee and they will get buy-in from everybody and again, if it is a bad decision, then it is everybody's fault. If you go to the doctor because of some major malady or injury and that doctor recommends a complicated surgery, what do you do? If you are smart, you get a second opinion. But what if the second doctor contradicts the first doctor? They are both experts who came up with different answers. If you automatically defer to experts, you wouldn't need a second opinion anyway. And in fact, you aren't medically qualified to determine which of those doctors has the more valid opinion anyway. But it is your body and ultimately the decision is your responsibility. In anticipation of your next position, you are going to say "yes, but if I go to 10 doctors and 9 of them support the same position and only one doctor says that they are wrong, it's something else? Obviously, I would go with the overwhelming majority." -But what if you find out that the original diagnosis was based on an xray that didn't capture the entire affected area? -What if, in addition to the xray not capturing the entire affected area, you discover that the original doctor altered the xray film in a way that supported a decision to go with the most expensive surgery? -What if, in addition to the incomplete and altered xray image, you find out that the 9 doctors all play poker together every friday night? It's still your decision and they are all still experts who will always know more about doctoring than you and it is still a 9 to 1 opinion. At what point do you discard the deference to the experts and realize that you not only have the ability, but you have the responsibility to question and to challenge the experts? And when someone trots out the experts, I always like to bring this one out. "You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows?" and: "you and on a sunny day, don't need to be a weatherman to say it is sunny when he says it's raining" Yesterday's NY Times Science Section had a lead article re what is happening with Norfolk Va as the sea rises, the land sinks and the effects of Global Warming along with other conditions become more and more apparent to this East Coast City and surroundings. Do you have Watts blog on that one? And there was an interesting article in the Sports Section on just how hot it is at the Australian Open this year and how temps have been rising over the past years culminating in a really very, very hot one this year. What you have just done is to demonstrate an emotional reaction to isolated events to justify your position that is based on incomplete, irrelevant and/or false information. Hot in Australia at the height of summer? Tell me it ain't so!!! If you wanted to be intellectually honest about this, you would discard the assertion that your opinion is more scientifically sound. You believe in the whole CAGW diagnosis and treatment because of one simple argument "what if it's true?". Any doomsday scenario has a call to arms that cannot be ignored. How can you ignore it? If it's true, billions can die!!! In the face of all of the facts where it is proven that the sample set that is being used to diagnosis the AGW situation is meaningless. And it has been proven that data has been falsified and the models have failed and it is proven that the big names in climatology are scratching each other's backs (their own words in their own emails prove that they actively excluded other scientists who they knew didn't agree with them. (the scientific method doesn't include testing to verify. The approach when testing a theory is not to confirm the theory. The approach is to try and prove that the theory is wrong. They are supposed to look for faults, not try to confirm that their buddy was right. )) It is time to break out the mirror. Your views on this topic are driven by left wing ideology. And those driving the left wing ideology are actively trying to evoke an extreme emotional response from you and others like you so that they are better able to make fundamental changes to our sociopolitical system without challenges. Everything that I have stated about the climatologists' "science" is true. 150 years is a meaningless timeframe in Geo times. It has been proven multiple times that the raw temperature data has been falsified to support the CAGW position. And it has proven that the most prominent climatologist acted in a coordinated manner to exclude dissenting theories and opinions. And you still have no skepticism. That is a belief system that is so steeped in faith that it is clearly uncrackable.