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: combjelly who wrote (897707)	10/31/2015 8:57:25 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574261

CJ the Weiner Defender is a cowardly little twerp who reads my posts (because he comments on them) but won't address the question I raised to Sharky: For the period 1880 - 2000, what was wrong with the adjustment process used in 2005 that they had to do additional adjustments by 2015 producing an additional half degree of warming for that historic period? Your comment about me shows you read my posts. Failure to reply will be taken as an act of pssiness. Both NASA 2015 and BEST show a 1.2 degree warming from 1880 to 2000. Apparently BEST (2015) is simply duplicating the recent NASA adjustment process. The problem is that NASA 2005 showed only 0.7 degree change between 1880 and 2000 as late as 2005. Clearly this is ridiculous. As of 2005 and 2015, the 1880 - 2000 period was in the can. To materially change the warming shown in 2005 is to say that 2005 analysis was crap. If it was, how can we know the 2005 crap adjusted in 2015 isn't crap too? I'm sure if they continue this, by 2025 NASA will be saying the warming shown today is crap too and has been adjusted showing another half degree of warming. And BEST can redo it their analysis duplicating the 2025 adjustment process and get the same result and say, gee, it must be right. NASA Mann-ufactured half a degree of warming between 2005 and 2015:* New Ways To Visualize NASA Temperature Fraud Posted on October 29, 2015 by stevengoddard I’m trying out some new ways to help people visualize how NASA data tampering has nearly doubled 1883-2003 warming since 2005, and how they made the hiatus disappear in 2015. The next graph shows only the five year means at the same scale, but normalized the three graphs to the 1880s. Note how they have adjusted the data nearly an order of magnitude out of their own error bars. A smoking gun of incompetence and fraud by the criminals who are behind the biggest scam in history.

To: combjelly who wrote (897707)	10/31/2015 10:17:08 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By jlallen Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1574261

>>Bruce is a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger affect [sic]. It is interesting to do a search of SI for "dunning" in posts made by you. You evidently discovered the term on or about 8/29/13, a date since which you have repeatedly used the term to describe pretty much anyone who has disagreed with you. As a result of your chronic, incompetent use of the term, the only reasonable conclusion is that you haven't the slightest idea what it means and may even suffer from it yourself