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: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (752091)

11/10/2013 6:38:23 PM

From: FJB

2 Recommendations

Recommended By
Jorj X Mckie
TideGlider

Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1575557

Why Does the Global Warming Hoax Persist? (John Hinderaker) The catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory has now been, in my opinion, definitively refuted. Yet the global warming machine grinds on, oblivious to the science. Why? Because there is a great deal of money at stake. The Science and Environmental Policy Project has the numbers: Number of the Week: $22,195,000,000 US. As required by law, the White House delivered to Congress a report stating in Fiscal Year 2013, which ended on September 30, the US government spent $22,195,000,000 on climate change matters. The main categories are: US Global Change Research Program $2.463 Billion; Clean Energy Technologies $5.783 Billion, International Assistance $797 Million; Natural Resources Adaption $95 Million; Energy Tax Provisions That May Reduce Greenhouse Gases $4.999 Billion; Energy Payments in Lieu of Tax Provisions $8.080 Billion. The $8.080 Billion buys a lot of lobbying power for the wind and solar industries. These expenditures further support SEPP’s earlier estimates that since 1993, the US has spent over $150 Billion on climate change. The updated figure is over $165 Billion. Note that not a single one of those dollars, ostensibly spent to combat “climate change,” had an iota of impact on the climate. Nearly $2.5 billion went to fund the alarmist campaign; no wonder alarmist scientists don’t want the gravy train to end. The symbiosis is obvious: the government pays alarmists billions to spread myths about the climate, and the point of the mythology is to persuade voters to confer more power on government. And the $165 billion that the U.S. government has spent since 1993 is only a fraction of total global spending to grease the “green” machine. Lots of money to allies of big government; that is what global warming alarmism is all about.

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (752091)	11/10/2013 9:15:59 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575557

With your post, you prove that you don't understand statistics. Over any short period, data is typically very noisy and trends can be hard to find. The greater the number of variables in the regression analysis, the more true this is. Over longer periods, the long term trends become more apparent. So when the report says over a 15-20 period the trend is noisy, then that doesn't mean anything. The long term trend is still intact. Do you have any statistics studies under your belt, by chance? Perhaps you'd have more credibility if you did.

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (752091)	12/10/2013 12:24:05 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1575557

The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years(e.g., 1998 to 2012). {9.4, Box 9.2} So they are clearly pointing out that for the past 15 years they observed trends have not followed the simulated trends. In other words, their models had absolutely no predictive value. The obvious response to that is that15 years is too short of time frame for an overall trend to not be swamped by noise. The obvious counterarguments to that response are 1 - The current models haven't been in existence longer than 15 years, so they have no demonstrated predictive value. ("Predicting" past events isn't hard. You can massage your model to be correct with past data. Even if you don't deliberately do that, you discard models that past data shows to be faulty and eventually you are left only with ones that meet past data). 2 - Yes 15 years is too short of time frame to have high confidence that other factors will cancel out, but hundreds of years is as well, and if you ignore changes on that time scale then you have to toss out all the data that show any global warming plausibly connected to human activity. I wouldn't go that far, but I would have to say that some discount should be applied to that data.