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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (42886)	9/6/2013 11:18:45 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 86355

Your statement is false. The information in the article only show the stupider of the Climate scientist are 98% wrong. The expert noted at the top of the heap Climate Scientist Roy W Spencer says. from: drroyspencer.com On the full page there are also to me some false proffers. Roy is after all a Climate Scientist, not a physicist. Obviously, knowing the strength of feedbacks in the climate system is critical; this is the subject of most of my research. Here you can read about my latest work on the subject, in which I show that feedbacks previously estimated from satellite observations of natural climate variability have potentially large errors. A confusion between forcing and feedback (loosely speaking, cause and effect) when observing cloud behavior has led to the illusion of a sensitive climate system, when in fact our best satellite observations (when carefully and properly interpreted) suggest an IN-sensitive climate system. Finally, if the climate system is insensitive, this means that the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming over the last 100 years — some natural mechanism must be involved. Here you can read about my favorite candidate: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (42886)	9/6/2013 11:46:07 AM
From: FJB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

Tropical storm Gabrielle fizzles: Why has hurricane season been so calm? (+video) Tropical storm Gabrielle was the seventh Atlantic tropical cyclone this season, but no hurricanes have yet formed, which is unusual. Another 10 hurricane-free days would set a record. By Pete Spotts, Staff writer / September 5, 2013 This satellite image shows tropical storm Gabrielle moving east toward the Dominican Republic Wednesday. The storm has since been downgraded to a tropical depression. NASA GOES Project/Reuters

To: Brumar89 who wrote (42886)	9/6/2013 12:03:45 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

Two bob each way - or Anthony Watts pats Schrödinger's pussy cat Sou \| 10:12 PM Anthony Watts places two bob each way on the 97% consensus. Within the space of 24 hours he is equally convinced: there is virtually no scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming. A potty peer named Monckton sez that 3,896 is not 97.1% of 4014. Now he's got even a statistician insisting that 3896 divided by 4014 equals only 0.003. Anthony's not too good at arithmetic either, so he places a bet on Monckton; there is virtually 100% consensus that humans are causing global warming. A blogger in the UK called Andrew Montford who lives on a hill with some bishop or other, writes on behalf of the Global Warming Fan Club (a lobby group to agitate on behalf of the much maligned CO2 - it's plant food you know) and sez everyone knows that humans cause AGW, there's no debate. So Anthony places a bet on the Global Warming Fan Club. Anthony reckons both are equally true. He's got both points of view on his website on the same page on the same day - click for archive No Consensus and archive 100% Consensus. They may be opposite viewpoints but the Right Wing Authoritarian in Anthony is not at all uncomfortable holding two opposing thoughts in his head and simultaneously agreeing with both. Now the Viscount and the Bishop dweller both agree on one thing, those in positions of authority can't be trusted. And who is arguably the most powerful human being on earth? It's the President of the United States of America. So when he tweets this to his 36,115,998 followers: [iframe width="500" height="211" title="Embedded Tweet" class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" id="twitter-widget-2" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: rgb(238, 238, 238) rgb(221, 221, 221) rgb(187, 187, 187); margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; display: block; min-width: 220px; max-width: 99%; borderRadius: 5px; boxShadow: 0 1px 3px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.15);" allowtransparency=""][/iframe] ...the conspiracy theorists rise up in arms, united against a common foe. They join together, proud of the diversity of thoughts (within their own heads) and cry " But Cook13 didn't ask if it was dangerous!" Is Cook et al (2013) really Schrödinger's kitty cat? As those dastardly scientists have discovered: Distrust and paranoia about government has a long history, and the feeling that there is a conspiracy of elites can lead to suspicion for authorities and the claims they make. For some, the attraction of conspiracy theories is so strong that it leads them to endorse entirely contradictory beliefs... ...The researchers wanted to know if the contradictory beliefs were due to suspicion of authorities, so they asked 102 college students about the death of Osama bin Laden (OBL). People who believed that "when the raid took place, OBL was already dead," were significantly more likely to also believe that "OBL is still alive." Since bin Laden is not Schrödinger's cat, he must either be alive or dead. ... ..."For conspiracy theorists, those in power are seen as deceptive-even malevolent-and so any official explanation is at a disadvantage, and any alternative explanation is more credible from the start," said the authors. It is no surprise that fear, mistrust, and even paranoia can lead to muddled thinking; when distrust is engaged, careful reasoning can coast on by. "Believing Osama is still alive," they write, 'is no obstacle to believing that he has been dead for years." Deniers are a muddled lot, aren't they. A "bob" = 1 shilling, which is roughly equal to ten cents. "Two bob each way" is a bet eg on a horse race that the horse will either win or come in the top three in a horse race. (Australian lingo.) blog.hotwhopper.com