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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (21306)	6/10/2017 9:58:45 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 356481

>>Not to mention, the models have been shown to be a lot more accurate than either you or Dyson claim. That is just indisputable. That's the bottom line. The accuracy is lousy as is shown in he Christy chart that I posted yet again. But Dyson makes many other correct points. One is he fact that measurement of historical data does not support fractions of degrees precision, yet the entire process comes down to fractions of degrees C. It is just poorly done statisticc, any way you want to slice it. First thing you learn in basic numerical analysis. It is just my opinion, but it seems very foolish to ignore the input of the most brilliant, experienced scientific minds alive today just because they question the religion of global warming. Finally, Dyson smartly makes the point that even if GW turns out to be a problem it is just not going to be nearly the problem of some one problems we face as a people. It just isn't. The dogmatic response of fake scientists to GW is a pretty sad thing in the he world today. I guess I had thought science was evolved but I see just about every error I was warned about in my graduate studies decades ago.