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: Brumar89 who wrote (863120)	6/6/2015 10:17:07 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579031

"The latest fake study is based on adjustments to sea surface temperatures." Just look at the graphs. Pay no attention to the line that says, "Without accounting for the fact that old sea surface temperature measurements were biased to be too cool, global warming would be larger." Prolly should sit down B4 you get to, "Only alarmists would prefer the raw temperature trend." The most paradox are the mitigation sceptics who react by claiming that scientists are not allowed to remove biases due to changes in the way temperature was measured. Without accounting for the fact that old sea surface temperature measurements were biased to be too cool, global warming would be larger. Previously I explained the reasons why raw data shows more warming and you can see the effect in the bottom panel of the above graph. The black line shows NOAA's current best estimate for the temperature change, the thin blue (?) line the temperature change in the raw data. Only alarmists would prefer the raw temperature trend. No! Ah! Part II. The return of the uncertainty monster variable-variability.blogspot.com