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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SuperChief who wrote (124772)	11/16/2016 6:32:08 PM
From: James Seagrove	Respond to of 219592

Go ahead make Al Gore rich/er. Sucker...

To: SuperChief who wrote (124772)	11/16/2016 11:59:53 PM
From: bart13	Respond to of 219592

Real Scientists follow the Scientific Method. They are empiricists who look at ALL the data, and if the data doesn't match their hypothesis they adapt their hypothesis. The pseudo-scientists are also easy to spot. They talk about "consensus" (which is not part of the Scientific Method) because they don't want to talk about the satellite observations. They talk about computer models, but refuse to discuss why the computer models don't match observed reality. They discard any and all observations that don't match their hypothesis. They call for the legal punishment of their opponents. They care more about global wealth redistribution than whether the empirical data matches their Statist Collectivist worldview. They seek to control the flow of money, and want to dictate how you can live your life: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here are some comments from some of your fellow travelers on the left ! These are the predictions made on the first earth day in 1970. Didn’t believe them then, don’t believe them now . . . 1.”Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” — Harvard biologist George Wald 2.”We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner 3.”Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” — New York Times editorial 4.”Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich 5.”Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” — Paul Ehrlich 6.”It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scientific theories must make predictions by which they can be tested. Providing evidence that AGW has failed in its predictions is not cherry picking, it is refutation. Unfortunately, when confronted with failed predictions the standard alarmist answer is to disavow the predictions. They will say that those are not predictions at all, they are projections—and that means AGW is not a scientific theory at all.” And this: “Returning to the subject of proving or disproving the theory of anthropogenic global warming, there are only three possibilities here: AGW makes no predictions and hence is not a scientific theory; AGW depends on vague feedback mechanisms that must be constantly reinterpreted, making AGW a very weak theory and scientifically useless; or the predictions made by climate scientists about the effects of AGW are just that, predictions, and if those predictions can be shown to not be true then AGW is a false theory. I learned this from the global warming alarmists: 1. If its warm its global warming, lets have a press release and call for the end of the world. 2. If its cold its climate change, lets have a press release and call for the end of the world. 3. If it rains its climate change, lets have a press release and call for the end of the world. 4. If it doesn't rain its climate change, lets have a press release and call for the end of the world. 5. If its humid its climate change, lets have a press release and call for the end of the world. 6. If its dry its climate change, lets have a press release and call for the end of the world. 7. If we get a breeze its climate change, lets have a press release and call for the end of the world. ===================================== Where did this 97 percent figure come from? When you explore the lineage of this cliché, it appears about as convincing as a North Korean election. Most footnotes point to a paper published last year by Prof. John Cook of the University of Queensland, which purported to have reviewed the abstracts of over 11,000 climate science articles. But the abstract of Cook’s paper actually refutes the talking point: "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW [anthropogenic global warming], 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus." weeklystandard.com iopscience.iop.org ------------- 97.1% of the 33.6% who endorsed AGW and had a position on it (66.4% expressed no AGW position), the actual non spun "consensus" is 32.63% - not even one out of three!