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: koan who wrote (784137)	5/9/2014 9:08:02 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577962

Someone tell R Pete Sessions of Texas a Witch Hunt means there is no witch, not that there is one-lol? He said" if there is a witch hunt there must be a witch." He really doesn't get it and that is scary; not to mention his calling something "goo ball"-lol. He is really down thar.

To: koan who wrote (784137)	5/9/2014 9:23:02 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1577962

>> You cannot compare the discovery of relativity with a scientific evaluation. That is what you guus do, you find shit that looks similar, but aren't, then throw them out and say--SEE-lol? Dumbass. I'm comparing a scientific consensus that existed then with one that purportedly exists now, and saying that 99% of scientists were wrong then and the purported 97% may well be wrong now. Yet, you continue to use the assertion that 97% of scientists agree as though it should be somehow persuasive. It isn't to educated people. To you, undoubtedly. >> They have well known scientific applications to apply to the question of globally warming. While I'm no scientist I do know something about statistical inference. The data simply do not support the inference that has been drawn. >> That blew peoples minds. Sure. Because 99% of scientists didn't think it was true. If you don't like the comparison with Relativity, there are plenty of others. In the 1960s physicians spewed antibiotics. It was the "solution" to all problems. Today, knowledgeable people understand that antibiotic resistance is one of the most intimidating threats facing the world today. When Richard Feynman, no dummy, gave his famous 1959 talk that launched the field of nanotechnology, interests were peaked but no one took him seriously. And frankly, when I began my career in computer science in 1977, where we routinely wrote programs to run in 16KB of memory and ran entire systems for substantial business with 16MB of disk storage, the very idea of carrying around 128GB of data on a keychain would have been absurd, even though we all knew how quickly the technology was moving. Science has been wrong about just about everything. The idea that, somehow, we would now "accept" an assertion in its infancy without proof is just absurd. And anyone who understands the scientific method knows that.

To: koan who wrote (784137)	5/10/2014 2:53:35 PM
From: longnshort	5 Recommendations Recommended By dave rose FJB joseffy Sedohr Nod Taro Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577962

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs

To: koan who wrote (784137)	5/10/2014 3:19:18 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Recommended By Brumar89 Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577962

Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus According to Breakdown of Cook et al study, say Friends of Science PRWeb – May 28, 2013 PRESS RELEASE The company that placed this press release with PRWeb is responsible for its content. It is not edited by the Albany Times Union. In response to multiple inquiries from media and global warming advocates, Friends of Science issue this release to expose the statistical manipulation evident from the break down of the Cook et al paper. Friends of Science decry the linking of this flawed study with alleged danger from man-made carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) as there has been no global warming in 16 years despite a rise in CO2 levels; Friends of Science say the sun and oceanic oscillations are the main drivers of climate change, not CO2. Calgary, Alberta (PRWEB) May 28, 2013 “The Cook et al paper is very misleading as described in major media. The breakdown of the survey results are not described up front,” says Ken Gregory, Director of Friends of Science. “The Cook study claims that any paper that mentions CO2 as a possible cause of some warming is part of a ‘consensus’. That is simply not true. Further, this survey does not assess ‘danger’.” Gregory’s comment refers to the Obama tweet that wrongly claimed that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: Cook survey showed that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”" “Nothing in this survey discusses any level of danger to humans; in fact global warming stopped 16 years ago and this is well-known in the scientific community and acknowledged by the UN Climate Panel, the IPCC,” says Gregory. Friends of Science say the public should question the motives of those who are twisting the survey results. The Herald Sun of Melbourne, Australia published similar questions along with answers from surprised scientists who do not support Cook's 'consensus' at all, even though Cook says they do! Gregory explains a subtle point most readers would miss. “The Cook abstract falsely says, "Among abstracts expressing a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming." He explains that the UN Climate Panel (IPCC) AGW consensus position is that humans are causing at least 90% of the recent warming to 2001, not that humans have ‘some’ effect on climate. However Cook's 'explicit endorsement level' is based on only 50%, influence by humans, misleading to average citizens as it reduces the accepted international parameter by almost half. While Friends of Science note that most scientists acknowledge that humans affect climate in some way, the paths are many – including farming, forestry, land disturbance, industrial emissions, and breathing. “Each of us emits CO2 at about 40,000 ppm when we breathe out,” says Gregory. “Does that make us dangerous?” Another under-reported element is that "This letter was conceived as a 'citizen science' project by volunteers contributing to the Skeptical Science website: skepticalscience.com." Skeptical Science is an advocate of the AGW theory. A searchable database of abstracts and ratings in the Cook study is provided on the Skeptical Science site. This link shows the "Endorsement level 1, Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%.(human actions causing 50% or more warming)" Note that this search term returns 65 of the 12000+ abstracts. The page lists each of the 65 abstracts giving the title with a link to the abstract, the journal where it was published and the endorsement rating. The IPCC and climate alarmists claim that 90% to 100% of the recent warming (since 1975) was caused by greenhouse gas emissions. An astrophysical paper by Nir Shaviv that shows the sun causing 60% of the warming does not support the IPCC position on climate change. However, in the Cook study, this paper was falsely rated as explicitly endorsing AGW ("but does not quantify or minimize"). Several of the 65 papers categorized by Cook as Endorsement level 1 in fact show that the IPCC projections of warming are wrong and grossly exaggerated. A paper by Scafetta and West states, "We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming." The Cook et al study data base has seven categories of rated abstracts. 1. 65 explicit endorse, >50% warming caused by man 2. 934 explicit endorse 3. 2933 implicit endorse 4. 8261 no position 5. 53 implicit reject 6. 15 explicit reject 7. 10 explicit reject, <50% warming caused by man Papers in the third category which Cook alleges, “implicit endorse,” in reality make no comment on whether humans have caused warming. This category includes papers about mitigation policies. Says Gregory, “It is wrongly assumed by Cook et al, that an author who writes about biofuels, endorses the IPCC position on climate change. This is not necessarily the case.” The Cook et al paper adds up categories 1, 2 and 3 and presents this total of 3932 papers as endorsing the AGW consensus. In fact many of those papers strongly reject the IPCC AGW position. “Public policy should be based