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: J_F_Shepard who wrote (830865)	1/18/2015 10:48:21 PM
From: Wharf Rat	1 Recommendation Recommended By J_F_Shepard Respond to of 1576887

"NOAA, NASA: 2014 was probably not the warmest year on our recordProbably???? " Deniers deny; it's what they do. This is a comment from from Confirmed - 2014 was the hottest year on record blog.hotwhopper.com The usual deniers are already claiming that neither UAH nor RSS show 2014 being the hottest year. Judith Curry for example writes: "Meanwhile, the ‘warmest year’ is noticeably missing in the satellite data sets of lower atmospheric temperatures." archive.today That is odd since in November 2013 she wrote (as part of her article trying to debunk a Cowtan et al. paper ): "Second, UAH satellite analyses. Not useful at high latitudes in the presence of temperature inversions and not useful over sea ice (which has a very complex spatially varying microwave emission signature). Hopefully John Christy will chime in on this." archive.today Anthony W at WUWT blogging about the same issue wrote back in 2013: "NOAA knows high latitude near-pole data will be noisy and not representative, so they don’t even try to display it. UAH is the same way. Between the look-angle problem and the noise generated by sea ice, their data analysis stops short of the pole. RSS does the same due to the same physical constraints of orbit and look angle." archive.today So what is it, Curry and Watts? Are satellite data OK or not? You can't reject them in 2013 when criticizing a paper which used satellite data only to fully embrace them again in January 2015 to deny that 2014 was the hottest year. Cowtan et al., Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends onlinelibrary.wiley.com

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (830865)	1/19/2015 12:35:41 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576887

>> They're not sure it was not the warmest?? Another one of those numbers things. You're not going to get it. Just let it pass.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (830865)	1/19/2015 10:53:30 AM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1576887

PAPER: Obamacare penalty may be larger than expected... MAG: Democrats having second thoughts...

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (830865)	1/19/2015 10:57:36 AM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576887

Obamacare penalty may come as shock at tax time Those Americans who didn’t get health insurance last year could be in for a rude awakening when the IRS asks them to fork over their Obamacare penalty — and it could be a lot more than the $95 many of them may be expecting. The Affordable Care Act requires those who didn’t have insurance last year and didn’t qualify for one of the exemptions to pay a tax penalty, which was widely cited as $95 the first year. But the $95 is actually a minimum, and middle- and upper-income families will actually end up paying 1 percent of their household income as their penalty. TurboTax, an online tax service, estimated that the average penalty for lacking health insurance in 2014 will be $301. PHOTOS: Best concealed carry handguns “People would hear the $95, quit listening, and make an assumption that that was what their penalty was going to be,” said Chuck Lovelace, vice president of affordable care for Liberty Tax Service. “I think that a lot of people will be surprised when they get in there and find out that their penalty is [based] on their household income.” The penalty is designed to prod Americans to buy insurance and the penalty for not having it is scheduled to rise considerably: to a $325 minimum or 2 percent of income in 2015, and to a $695 minimum or 2.5 percent of income in 2016. This Aug. 21, 2014, file photo shows health care tax forms 8962, ... more > Tax experts said those stung by a higher penalty the first year may buy plans to escape the penalty the next go-around. Read more: washingtontimes.com Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter Read more: washingtontimes.com Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (830865)	1/19/2015 11:26:44 AM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576887

Warmist crooks backpedal Now that they have got the lie splashed worldwide they can afford to do that The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true. In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’. The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all. Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much. As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond. Scientists disagree over its significance, but there is little doubt that the rapid warming of the 1980s and early 1990s has slowed – although greenhouse gas emissions have surged. Bob Ward, of the Grantham Institute on Climate Change, said the new figures showed the notion that global warming had ‘stopped’ was a ‘myth’, although it had ‘temporarily slowed’. Since 1951, he added, the long-term trend was for warming of 0.12C per decade, and in his view, it would ‘pick up again unabated’ if emissions continued to rise. However, if the long-term rate is 0.12C per decade, this would mean the world would be 1C or so warmer by the end of the century, not 4C-5C as some have claimed. Climate sceptics insisted that the new figures showed the warming ‘pause’ had continued. Dr David Whitehouse, of the Global Warming Policy Forum, said ‘there has been no statistically significant warming trend since 1997’ – because the entire increase over this period was smaller than the error margin. http://antigreen.blogspot.com/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html