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: i-node who wrote (71944)	5/17/2018 2:49:35 PM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 356253

<<<<The greatest problem was, and still is, the models>>>> If your mindset is ideologically driven - you can always make this claim because the modeling is something you just don't have the mind to grasp. Neither do I. That makes the argument based on modeling just way silly. BUT, people who use the good brain God gave us and open our eyes to what is all around us can clearly see that something is going on. Open your eyes I-node - just open your eyes for Gods sake!

To: i-node who wrote (71944)

5/18/2018 11:16:43 AM

From: koan

1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Ivan Inkling

Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 356253

That post shows how little you know about the extent of knowledge of modern science.

The historical data is not a mess. And how would you know? You do not have the knowledge the scientists have!! Can you tell the difference between a methane molecule from the arctic and the tropics?

How would you know you cannot reconcile the satellite data with the historical data?? Those people spned decades studying that stuff.

How do you think you know that?

You have no idea what you do not know. The right wing has no idea what they do not know.

<<

>> Did you know that?

I know that claim has been made, and I believe that satellites are good data going forward.

But the historical data is just. a. mess. And you cannot reconcile the satellite data with the historical data without reconciliation, and everytime they redo it it all gets less credible.

Beyond that, the data was never the greatest problem. The greatest problem was, and still is, the models. To create models you have to have good data. You can't use the output of your models to just fabricate good data to feed back into them.

I get the idea a lot of the "PhD Climate Scientists" never really did the math.