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: Land Shark who wrote (889395)	9/21/2015 6:07:01 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1575421

no warming for 21 years why do you deny this fact

To: Land Shark who wrote (889395)	9/21/2015 6:14:12 PM
From: Brumar89	3 Recommendations Recommended By dave rose jlallen longnshort Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575421

I don't suppress anything nor do I want to. You can believe what you want to. And you can try to convince others just as I do. But you don't even try ... you just demand people who think otherwise be silenced. The evidence on your side isn't overwhelming. It's underwhelming.

To: Land Shark who wrote (889395)	9/22/2015 12:14:10 AM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By dave rose Respond to of 1575421

>> And you want to suppress anything that supports the thesis of climate change despite the fact overwhelming scientific evidence supports it. Anyone who understands statistics and has looked at these data objectively will conclude, at the very least, that there is a great deal of manipulation of data happening here, and the real outrage is the absolute collective incompetence of the peer review process in journals like Science and Nature -- both of which have allowed numerous articles through that should never have seen the light of day. Articles which have persuaded the scientifically illiterate that a problem exists where it is either nonexistent or much smaller than the so-called research has indicated. Simply put, there is no "overwhelming scientific evidence." In fact, there is little evidence that is statistically sound at all. As Steyn put it, "There are two problems with proxy reconstruction -- the proxies and the reconstruction." No matter how many times you recombine, twist, turn, correlate, regress, analyze the variance, the residuals, the Pearson, and god help us, the ER ("Error Reduction", as close to a conveniently invented statistic as you can get!), it just doesn't matter. You cannot get accuracy to +/- 1C over thousands of years. It is meaningless driven and no amount of arithmetic changes that fact.