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 : Manmade Global Warming, A hoax? A Scam? or a Doomsday Cult? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (3727)	2/9/2014 12:54:06 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4326

The sites I follow now are joannenova.com.au daily. wattsupwiththat.com not quite daily. I also check into people.duke.edu Nicola Scafetta, Ph. D. and drroyspencer.com Roy W. Spencer Jo Anne Nova has great science and politically amusing stories. Somewhat leaning to Australia but often not. She does pick out really good stuff in science. And the stupidity of the warming chicken littles. Watt's sight is more prolific and often has amusing and science gems. Scafetta is a genius and his work shows all manner of the extent of natural variability of the long term global temperatures driven by gravity waves in the orbital cycles of the solar system. Roy Spencer is also bright guy who is measuring the global temperature of the Earth using satellites. I am still working on understanding completely his work on On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balancehttp://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (3727)	2/9/2014 11:42:14 PM
From: sense	1 Recommendation Recommended By Hawkmoon Respond to of 4326

And, of course, the inversion layer is caused by: WIND... bloomberg.com Note, they can't even be honest in announcing admissions of their failures ? "the rate of global warming has eased in the past 20 years" ? Really ? It has "eased" in rate ? It's not that it is has been proven to be OPPOSITE in magnitude and direction... as was predicted ? And, it's not that they picked 20 years as the period in the data... to skew the impact ? So, when your hopelessly useless computer models fail... because they're not based on causality or any logic based on understanding... what should you use to explain that... other than "The scientists used computer models and weather data to determine the effect of the stronger winds on ocean circulation"... There. That should do it ! ??? How they validated "computer models" of changes in surface wind patterns generating altered dynamics in heat exchange... with that suddenly and unexpectedly distributing heat 2300 feet below the surface ? Why do I not trust that the new computer models... are based on anything different in logic than the old ones ? You need an explanation... so program the computer to provide one by mushing data around... whether that is based on anything other than GIGO just not mattering ? How interesting, though... that all the "global warming"... is being stored in the Pacific Ocean ? LOL!!! "The net effect of these anomalous winds is a cooling in the 2012 global average surface air temperature of 0.1–0.2 degree Celsius, which can account for much of the hiatus"... So, what's causing the REST ? And, why don't they bother defining what "much" means ? And, why no graphs showing "hiatus" in action ? It looks like the effort is merely trying to re-assert authority they've lost, by being proven wrong, by claiming, again wrongly, that NOW they know what's happening. Looks to me like all they've accomplished... is to prove how large the original uncertainties in the supposed FACT of "warming theory" are... and how incredibly easy it is to find them... if you need them to provide an excuse for the failure of a proof... instead of needing them to provide something other than proof ? As long as "cooling" is "a reduced pace of warming" and "reversal" is "hiatus"... they're liars, and should not be trusted. Not a one of them...