08-11-2015, 10:46 PM
The links 2126 posted are all governments and/or agenda driven reports. Please forgive me if I don’t join him in drinking the Kool-Aid.
The various governments positions on Man Caused Global Warming/Climate Change (they had to change from Global Warming to Climate Change/Chaos because the warming cycle changed over a decade ago. They even changed taking temperature readings from rural areas where it would be more accurate to urban areas where it is always warmer.) are similar to their positions on Health care, Vaccinations, GMO foods, and Fukushima contamination of the Oceans. It is all about the money and control. Do your own research instead of relying on government reports.
Virtually all research is driven by grant money and the vast majority of the grant money is coming from governments who have a vested interest in Cap & Trade or Carbon Taxes. What better way to extract money from the pockets of the people around the world?
The actual raw facts and therefore the science is controlled by the governments on the above issues and others. If the facts do not fit their agendas, they simply change the facts. We have seen many examples of this over the past decades. If research agencies and researchers want future grant money, they know they have to produce reports that agree with the agenda. Trillions of dollars are at stake.
I find it interesting that AU seems to recognize that Climate Change is political when he calls those that oppose his POV Right Wing, Conservatives, and Republicans. Facts are not political until they are manipulated and/or used to support a political agenda. 2126 likes to use the PC tactics liberals have used for many years successfully. However, I do agree with his statement, “no amount of scientific data will likely sway those who have reached conclusions based on non-scientific information.” and point out that it applies to him as well. All of his references are from non-scientific sources. He might as well source Al Gore where it all started.
Palm’s article posted above talks about the quality of scientific consensus and the various computer climate models, the quality based upon the honesty of the facts and date used. I think we have all witnessed this.
I think that many of us investors that have reviewed data for determining or trying to find a system to guide our investing have used the technique of back testing over historical data to determine how a system may work in the future. It is common to change the rules to achieve better results. Yet, using the best rules that were successful in testing over historical data often fail when used on real time data.
This is also going on with the models developed to try to predict and/or control the narrative on Global Warming or Climate Change as it is now called since the warming has stopped. Their models no longer work.
So, as Tree pointed out obliquely, one can either side with Al Gore and those that drink his Kool-Aid or the actual facts and raw data.
The various governments positions on Man Caused Global Warming/Climate Change (they had to change from Global Warming to Climate Change/Chaos because the warming cycle changed over a decade ago. They even changed taking temperature readings from rural areas where it would be more accurate to urban areas where it is always warmer.) are similar to their positions on Health care, Vaccinations, GMO foods, and Fukushima contamination of the Oceans. It is all about the money and control. Do your own research instead of relying on government reports.
Virtually all research is driven by grant money and the vast majority of the grant money is coming from governments who have a vested interest in Cap & Trade or Carbon Taxes. What better way to extract money from the pockets of the people around the world?
The actual raw facts and therefore the science is controlled by the governments on the above issues and others. If the facts do not fit their agendas, they simply change the facts. We have seen many examples of this over the past decades. If research agencies and researchers want future grant money, they know they have to produce reports that agree with the agenda. Trillions of dollars are at stake.
I find it interesting that AU seems to recognize that Climate Change is political when he calls those that oppose his POV Right Wing, Conservatives, and Republicans. Facts are not political until they are manipulated and/or used to support a political agenda. 2126 likes to use the PC tactics liberals have used for many years successfully. However, I do agree with his statement, “no amount of scientific data will likely sway those who have reached conclusions based on non-scientific information.” and point out that it applies to him as well. All of his references are from non-scientific sources. He might as well source Al Gore where it all started.
Palm’s article posted above talks about the quality of scientific consensus and the various computer climate models, the quality based upon the honesty of the facts and date used. I think we have all witnessed this.
I think that many of us investors that have reviewed data for determining or trying to find a system to guide our investing have used the technique of back testing over historical data to determine how a system may work in the future. It is common to change the rules to achieve better results. Yet, using the best rules that were successful in testing over historical data often fail when used on real time data.
This is also going on with the models developed to try to predict and/or control the narrative on Global Warming or Climate Change as it is now called since the warming has stopped. Their models no longer work.
So, as Tree pointed out obliquely, one can either side with Al Gore and those that drink his Kool-Aid or the actual facts and raw data.