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: Brumar89 who wrote (939011)	6/9/2016 3:52:18 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By TideGlider Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1574483

The Global Warming Con — Fabricating Phony Fear Over Sea Levels Climate alarmists are warning that the Statue of Liberty is at risk of being overrun by rising sea levels caused by global warming. A more reasonable voice, however, says the nattering nabobs of “the narrative” are off the mark. It must be tiring to be a practitioner of the global warming dark arts, always having to invent a new scenario of disaster to keep the public in turmoil, as H.L. Mencken said, over “an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.” But give them credit: They keep coming. And they continue to be mistaken. Or, in some cases, purposely misrepresenting the facts so the facts will fit their political agenda. This appears to be the case with a 2012 study that the alarmists have used to gin up fear that human carbon dioxide emissions are driving us to a global disaster. When that paper was released, the Los Angeles Times reported that “sea levels in a 620-mile ‘hot spot’ along the Atlantic coast are rising three to four times faster than the global average, according to a new study by the U.S. Geological Survey.” What came next was the feverish, Mencken-esque hobgoblin that is required in every global warming story. “The sharp rise in sea levels from North Carolina to Massachusetts could mean serious flooding and storm damage for major cities such as New York, Philadelphia and Boston, as well as threats to wetlands habitats.” The Weather Channel followed up on the claim, declaring last week that “the Statue of Liberty is facing a disturbing future because of rising seas and a warming planet.” This latest argument is based on a new United Nations report, which means that this cautionary statement has all the objective science of a children’s book about a wolf and a young girl with fair hair. Naturally, the media either ignore or marginalize anything that disputes the global warming narrative. But contrary findings and opinions exist. In this case, climate change website Watts Up With That took a look at the “hot spots” identified in the 2012 study and determined that the researchers were guilty of practicing “bad science” and “cherry picking the time window” that backed the conclusion they wanted to reach. “Since December 2009,” wrote guest essayist Giordano Bruno, “the sea levels have declined in both Washington, D.C., and The Battery, N.Y.” The decreases were 3.3 millimeters a year in Washington, 10.7 millimeters a year in New York. The logic behind the study “was clearly flawed, but obviously Nature,” which published the report, “did not accept any comment,” wrote Bruno. “The science is settled, and can’t be discussed,” he added. Obviously Bruno — whose true identity is disguised by a pseudonym taken from a man who was executed in part because he held a different set of cosmological views — was being sarcastic, because the science is far from being settled. The fact that the paper was corrected — its supplementary information is the data Bruno used to make his point — proves it. But, as Bruno said, that can’t be discussed. http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/the-global-warming-con-fabricating-phony-fear-over-sea-levels/

To: Brumar89 who wrote (939011)	6/9/2016 3:53:55 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 1574483

Crying Wolf: the Worst Climate Prediction Ever Made Professor Nicola Scafetta, showing his 2010 predictions for global temperatures (from Meteo Live News). These predictions turned out to be spectacularly wrong. The debate on anything that has to do with the future often becomes a peculiar version of the story of "Crying Wolf". Assume that somebody cries wolf and that the wolf doesn't come. Then, someone else will often conclude that wolves don't exist (or are something nobody should be worried about). Something similar occurs in areas such as climate science when past uncertainties are taken as indicating that climate change does not exist (or is something nobody should be worried about.) Truly, it is a perversion of logic, but it has its reasons. Suppose that the appearance of wolves is relatively rare; then, even though you may know nearly nothing about wolves, it is a safe bet that you will be much more popular with shepherds if you tell them that the wolf won't come. And, normally, you will be able to claim that you were right; except when the wolf comes, of course, But, in that case it is likely that shepherds will be much more worried about saving their sheep than about chastising you for your incompetence in wolf matters. Something similar seems to be happening with climate change where plenty of people, usually knowing very little about climate science, tend to reassure people that climate change doesn't exist or that it is nothing to be worried about. Inasmuch as waterfront houses are not normally washed away every week by hurricanes and sea level rising, these reassuring predictors can claim to have been right, But sometimes even doomslayers may have a bad time when they try to make quantitative predictions. One remarkable case is that of Nicola Scafetta, who attempted to use a sophisticated statistical treatment (aka: let's torture the data until they confess) to prove that global warming is mainly caused by long-term planetary cycles. On the basis of his models, in 2010, he predicted that global temperatures should have remained constant or should have been going down; while in 2012 that temperatures should have been growing at a much slower rate than predicted by the standard climate models. Well, if there existed a prize for the worst climate predictions, I think these ones by Scafetta could legitimately concur for it. Global temperatures refused to follow his prediction and are actually exceeding the result of the IPCC models that Scafetta had criticized. Judge by yourself; below, you can see the results presented by Scafetta in 2010 (N. Scafetta. I cicli climatici e le loro implicazioni. Periodico semestrale dell’Associazione Normalisti. n.2 dicembre 2010) ( see also this link). Recent temperature data added in red. Some more recent predictions by Scafetta are a little better, but still widely off the mark (recent temperature data added in red) So, here is the conclusion: since we have solid physical evidence that wolves exist (unlike dragons and unicorns), you'd better pay attention to those who tell you that your sheep could be in danger. In the same way, since we have solid physical evidence that greenhouse gases cause warming and that their concentration is increasing, you'd better pay attention to those who tell you that your waterfront property is in danger (and not just that!) Acknowlegement: Stefano Caserini prepared the figures shown in this article. Note: this article was prompted by a debate that I had today with Nicola Scafetta at the AIGE-IIETA 2016 conference, in Naples. In his talk, Scafetta spent most of his time criticizing the standard general circulation models, saying that they don't reproduce well the historical data and that they are affected by huge uncertainties. He said that these models much exaggerate the climate sensitivity to CO2, although he stated that he does not deny that greenhouse gases have an effect on global temperatures. Then, he showed the results of his models compared with historical data, but always stopping the comparison with 2012 or 2013. He also said that according to some new work he has performed, he believes that Jupiter has a strong effect on the earth's temperatures. In my comment, I showed to the public the data that I am publishing in this post and I asked Scafetta how he can justify such glaring errors. Scafetta said that they are old data and that now he has better models. I countered saying that he can't change his assumptions every year and every year pretend to make reliable predictions. He reiterated that his model works now. Then, the moderator said that we had to stop and he recommended to everyone caution in believing models. And that was it! cassandralegacy.blogspot.com