Gyroscopic Investing

According to the co-founder of the Weather Channel.

"THE debate about climate change is finished - because it has been categorically proved NOT to exist....."

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/52 ... el-founder

People who believe VERY strongly in something are not going to be persuaded by facts.  See:

Mistakes Were Made (but not by me).

Well, he did co-found one of the most profound and intellectually important TV channel of all time, so he must know what he's talking about

He's definitely no Al Gore.

Reub wrote: He's definitely no Al Gore.

Luckily, nobody here cited Al Gore as an authority.

Ah... interesting.  So now we're back from the "we really don't know for sure if 97% of scientists are right," back to "it's all a scam and has been proven false."

Where have I seen this before?


Radical adjustments in position were made, but not by me.

moda0306 wrote: Ah... interesting.  So now we're back from the "we really don't know for sure if 97% of scientists are right,"

The "97% agreement" is a lie.  A BIG LIE.

I think 97% of scientists may agree that the earth has been warming lately.  Whether they agree that humans are a significant cause of the warming is another question.  For me, it's certainly still an open question.  It seems to me that the earth has gone through many cooling and warming periods through the ages.

A lot of the conclusions are based on computer models.  I use computer models in my work, and I can make them say whatever I want to, and this is for processes that are much better understood than the world's entire climate.

In "climategate" the usual suspects were caught supressing publication of data/papers that did not agree with their beliefs.  I'm sure you're quotes sources are about as believeable (99% of all NY times staffers agree).  Lying is justifyable to advance your agenda (see video from last few days of people caught advoocating voter fraud--this is what the left believes). 

The republicans problems stem from mostly being idiots and mostly little better than the democrats.  Given the real demonstrable problems which effect (affect?) this country today, any stand on this issue is irrelevant. i.e. nothing anyone does of says about this issue is going to do anything to improve this country in the present or near term.  Lots of things that are advocated on the basis of this fantasy will harm the country.  But like opening the southern borders to an infinite number of immigrants, transformation/"harm" is the point.  By any means necessary. 

Do you remember the global freeze scare hype which preceded the global warming hype? The same people singing a different tune.

Simonjester wrote: remember the political solutions to global cooling? .... identical to the political solutions for global warming.

From the research that I've done, I see no reason to think there is any negative impact from due to human involvement.

I think this is similar to the hyper inflationistas constantly screaming about the collapse of the dollar. Eventually people realize that all the doom an gloomy predictions aren't coming true, in which case the guy yelling that the end is near has been saying it for decades and it never comes to fruition.

Spoken like a true Obama voter!

What is normal variation in climate?  We have reliable weather data for only a geologic blink of an eye.

Antarctic ice sheet grows, arctic ice sheet shrinks.  Normal?  Who knows?

The response at the time of global cooling was to get particulates that block the sun out of the atmosphere (among other things).  Should we now strive to re-particulate the atmosphere and block that pesky solar radiation?

Why is virtually EVERY prediction about the results of changing climate something bad?

I am concerned that we have criminalized CO2, the availability of which is the main limiting factor of photosynthesis and thus food production.  Remember: government science = food pyramid.  Enough said.

Finally, I will pay closer attention to computer models about something as complex as climate when those modelers can accurately predict the movement of something as simple (relatively) as the equities markets.

"US IS HAVING ITS COOLEST YEAR ON RECORD"

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014 ... on-record/

Reub wrote: "US IS HAVING ITS COOLEST YEAR ON RECORD"

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014 ... on-record/

The funny thing about AGW settled science lately is how much it is becoming a case of who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?

Another example would be the prediction of more frequent and intense hurricanes. Almost on cue after that prediction we've enjoyed 9 straight years of no hurricanes in Florida, the longest period on record.

It could all be the calm before the storm of course, but it would be much easier to sell the case for AGW if the weather would actually start co-operating with the predictions.

And BTW, I remember seeing headlines earlier in the year that this was the warmest year on record.