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: tejek who wrote (600009)	2/5/2011 2:15:18 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1570520

Planet Earth Al Gore Explains ‘Snowmageddon’: Fox News Story Published by Briggs at 9:38 am under Climatology,Politics I was quoted by Gene Koprowski in his Fox News story “Planet Earth Al Gore Explains ‘Snowmageddon’“. (This accounted for the several hundred Google and other search engine redirects to this site from people searching for “dr william m briggs”.) Apparently, our boy Gore was telling all who would listen that global warming is so evil, so unrepentantly vile, that anything that has gone wrong in the world did so because of climate change. To paraphrase David Stove, Gore didn’t quite say that wooden legs were caused by global warming, but I don’t think he’d like to hear it denied. Koprowski (also picked up here): But not surprisingly, some climate-change skeptics are a bit hot under the collar over Gore’s “scientific” explanation. “Gore’s statement actually indicates a deeper problem — lack of precise predictions,” said Dr. William M. Briggs, a statistician and climate scientist. His research shows that there are no increased weather problems because of global warming, Briggs told FoxNews.com. “He’s saying that anything bad that happens must be because global warming caused it. Activists like Gore are great at identifying events after the fact as being caused by global warming, but terrible at predicting them beforehand,” Briggs said. My research points to world-wide tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons; pdf). There is no evidence that these storms have increased in number, intensity or strength, or longevity. In fact, there might have been, over the past decade, a slight decrease in these attributes. But I think that this is well known. The other argument I make is the better one. It takes no effort to point to untoward events after the fact and say, Jean Dixon-like, “See! More evidence that my theory is right!” If it is true that global warming will cause the Northern Hemisphere to experience cooler temperatures, then say so in advance. Don’t bustle to the cameras after things go wrong if you did not, or could not, say that they would in advance. Vague predictions like “There will be snowstorms and rumors of snowstorms” do not count and are not evidence that the end is near. Take heed that no man deceive you. It is, after all, perfectly possible to forecast that there will be, say, “15% more snowfall in the 2010-2011 Northern Hemisphere winter”, or that “There will be at least three more Pacific ocean typhoons in 2011 than there were in 2010?, and so forth. What is absurd is to point to a typhoon/cyclone/hurricane/snow storm after it has occurred and say that, “I could have predicted that if I wanted to. I chose not to because, among other reasons, I was busy. But that storm certainly indicates that my theory of climate change is true.” Of course, it might be true that this storm was caused by mechanisms consistent with anthropogenic climate change theory; however, since every winter has its share of snowstorms, and that this winter is not unusual compared with history, this latest storm is also consistent with the theory that the climate is insignificantly affected by mankind. The same goes for weather events of other kinds. It goes for non-events, too. Ever notice how talk of climate change always devolves to the apocalyptic? Floods! Droughts! Floods and droughts simultaneously! Windstorms! Deadly hurricanes! Heat waves! Democrats voting republican! One horror after another. This despite all historical and paleoclimatic evidence that warmer times were better, at least in terms biological. Why won’t global warming be responsible for a “dramatic” increase in pleasant sunny afternoons? How come we won’t see an “unprecedented” number of warm, laconic evenings? Why won’t there be an “inconvenient” rise in bountiful harvests? One reason folks like we (me and the regular crew here) are suspicious of global warming public scientists, activists, and miscellaneous proponents is because of their constant sourpuss attitude, their constant predictions of doom, their propensity to focus solely on the negative. They might even be right about all that, but when they tack on suggestions of how the rest of us should live our lives—which usually means surrendering freedom or money or both to government—we feel the winds blowing, all right. We also start feeling for our wallets. wmbriggs.com

To: tejek who wrote (600009)	2/5/2011 2:23:02 PM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570520

The Similarities Between Psychics And Global Warming Activists Published by Briggs at 10:31 am under Climatology,Statistics The statistical evidence series will continue after the weekend. “I see the letter G.” The woman closed her eyes, cocked her head, and looked inwardly. She became grave, tense. “There’s…wait a second…it’s coming through…yes! I can just make out a body of water nearby.” She settled back, opened her eyes, a wide smile overcoming the frown. She waited for the applause that was sure to come. The woman? A psychic telling a distraught family where the body of their daughter can be found. Or maybe an activist making guesses of where the next global warming calamity will occur. The two aren’t that far apart. Here’s why. The New York Post reports that a “clairvoyant” was hired by the family of “Melissa Barthelemy, 24, of Buffalo”, who had gone missing. Police suspected foul play. The unnamed psychic was reported to have said she saw Melissa’s “body buried in a shallow grave overlooking a body of water.” Weirdly, the seer also predicted that there would be the letter “‘G’ in a sign nearby.” Sadly, but also—let’s admit it—somewhat thrillingly, the police found Melissa where the psychic said she would be. And not just Melissa, a horrific mass grave in which “cops unearthed the skeletons of the victims, missing call girls, each wrapped in burlap bags on Long Island’s Gilgo Beach.” Long Island’s Gilgo Beach! There’s the body of water! There’s the G! The evidence tells us the psychic was right. Therefore, the psychic is psychic; that is, this person (we don’t know whether it’s a man or a woman; I’ll assume it’s a woman) must have the powers she said she does. If you want to say it in a complicated way, the “body of water” and the “G” confirm the theory that paranormal powers exist. And this is true: the evidence does indeed confirm the paranormal theory. If you’re a skeptic of psi powers, you might not like this conclusion, but that can’t be helped. When a theory predicts an event will happen, and if that event happens, that theory is confirmed to the degree the predicted events match the reality. Are we done? As John Wayne would say, Not hardly. For that same body of water and “G” also confirm the theory that the psychic is just guessing, and for obvious reasons. Melissa was a Long Island resident, and Long Island is filled with rivers, creeks, lakes, ponds, cisterns, swimming pools; even a well known ocean is nearby. There is virtually no place that is not “near” a body of water. And the “G”? Well, anything with “Long Island” will qualify (can you locate the “G”?). Then there are gas stations, various “ings”, etc., etc. There was almost no way that the psychic could have been wrong. Her supporters will never suffer disappointment. Unspecific predictions also plague the global warming forecasts of activists. I don’t mean all predictions of climate change, some of which are quite detailed. I have in mind those colorfully vivid sayings of doom given out by green organizations, typically in appeals for donations. These overly earnest folks say that if we don’t “do something”, bad things will occur. Near a body of water, usually. Those who have “We have to save the planet!” ever on their lips are ready to interpret any untoward event as evidence that their worst fears are realized. Remember the Indonesian tsunami? That was near a body of water, and more than one activist was ready to blame it on mankind; some especially clever agitators were even able to point to global warming. This year’s cold and snow in the States? Global warming, too. Poverty in the third word? Climate change. A lot of racism is caused by the climate chaos, too. More prostitutes, pimps, and pirates? Reliance of fossil fuels. People will always be creative enough to tie any environmentally bad thing—never, of course, good things—to the theory that mankind is responsible. Just as with psychics, whatever happens will be confirmation that their beliefs are true. They will not, so to speak, see that bodies of water are everywhere. This is why it is so difficult to convince the True Believer that his angst is misplaced. wmbriggs.com