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: Wharf Rat who wrote (764437)	1/17/2014 6:17:57 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1573678

Lefties try to navigate with the double albatrosses of Obamacare and global warming dragging them down.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (764437)	1/17/2014 7:41:55 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573678

Hi Wharf Rat; Great article "Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing"; This is a wonderful article! It's peer reviewed and published in Nature, a very prestigious journal. And it's from 2014! You should believe what it says, LOL!!! Now your side was telling me that "the science is settled" back around 1998. Now it's 15 years later and you've got a paper published in Nature that admits that "Despite decades of research attempting to narrow uncertainties, equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates from climate models still span roughly 1.5 to 5 degrees Celsius for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, precluding accurate projections of future climate."; So your side was lying when they said that "the science is settled". You were lying then and the implication is that you're still lying. You guys made your predictions for the temperature back in 1998 and they failed. Do you really think that the world is going to suffer incredible economic pain because you're afraid? Of course you're being ignored. Game over. And so now this latest paper claims that they've got new science that really does settle the question. Okay, since the last version of "settled science" failed, why should we even take notice of this one? Tell you what. Over the next 15 years the climate might do what you say it will do (though this paper doesn't actually say, LOL). And on the other hand it might not. And since you were wrong for 15 years it's pretty clear that we can't trust you on "forever" just because you're right on the next 15 years. You could get lucky. So we'll wait 30 years this time. If your climate predictions are running accurate through then, we can talk again. -- Carl