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: weatherguru who wrote (4068)	7/3/2014 9:48:30 PM
From: sense	1 Recommendation Recommended By weatherguru Respond to of 4326

Without an ability to predict... what ranges of variations between spot variations are normal ? Pick two spots... and ASSUME they must experience the same "average" variation... as a function of some other non-local variation ? Well, that's wrong. Local effects can easily dominate... and, what drives the variations in the local effects... that can't possibly be a function of greenhouse gas concentrations ? There is so much garbage in the assumptions about the basic physics of the atmosphere that it makes it impossible for the work being done now using those errors (without even thinking about them) to be meaningful. I think when they do eventually get around to figuring out the multi-variate sources of drivers and the range in variability in variation depending on those factors... it will turn out that the entire body of work done on global warming thus far is garbage... producing "noise"... with the results drawn into hockey sticks by wishful authors creating pictures while playing connect the dots to show you exactly what they want you to see... for reasons having nothing at all to do with science. Gas concentrations... aren't the most dynamic aspects of the atmosphere ? What IS the actual range of dynamics that dominates... and what does that require of the ENERGY being exchanged in the atmosphere ? They're not even close to asking the right questions...

To: weatherguru who wrote (4068)	7/7/2014 1:31:18 PM
From: Don Hurst	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 4326

weatherguru, This is the name of this thread: Manmade Global Warming, A hoax? A Scam? or a Doomsday Cult? - Now Climate Change Skeptic, Prof Richard Muller and 12 other Scientists say Manmade Global Warming is not a scam or hoax. It is happening ..the link previously provided to you is again below. nytimes.com[%22RI%3A9%22%2C%22RI%3A15%22] He clearly states that this ...>>"We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone),.."<< And this re solar activity... >>"Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the “Little Ice Age,” a period of cooling from the 14th century to about 1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past 250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes. This conclusion is, in retrospect, not too surprising; we’ve learned from satellite measurements that solar activity changes the brightness of the sun very little."<< Now Prof Muller says this also... >>"The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis."<< Now since you find fault with Prof Muller's work (btw, partially funded by the Kochs) you should take him up on his offer...>>"if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis."<< My suggestion to you though; don't start off by using this sentence...>>" Well shit, I guess the sun has got nothing to do with it!"<< And do try to avoid sense's use of the CAPS such as "FRAUD", COOKED DATA", "DELIBERATELY" and any sentences such as this one...>>"I think when they do eventually get around to figuring out the multi-variate sources of drivers and the range in variability in variation depending on those factors..."<< OMG Look forward to your posts re Prof Muller's changes in his Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project as a result of your posts to him.