Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling ( outlook for 'green' energy stocks )

  1. #1
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling ( outlook for 'green' energy stocks )

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/...global_cooling

    AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling



    WASHINGTON – Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard about it from a provocative new book. Only one problem: It's not true, according to an analysis of the numbers done by several independent statisticians for The Associated Press.

    The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It's been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather's normal ups and downs?

    In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

    "If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

    Yet the idea that things are cooling has been repeated in opinion columns, a BBC news story posted on the Drudge Report and in a new book by the authors of the best-seller "Freakonomics." Last week, a poll by the Pew Research Center found that only 57 percent of Americans now believe there is strong scientific evidence for global warming, down from 77 percent in 2006.

    Global warming skeptics base their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998. Since then, they say, temperatures have dropped — thus, a cooling trend. But it's not that simple.

    Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, fallen again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998. Published peer-reviewed scientific research generally cites temperatures measured by ground sensors, which are from NOAA, NASA and the British, more than the satellite data.

    The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA's climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend.

    "The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."

    The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

    Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.

    Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.

    Identifying a downward trend is a case of "people coming at the data with preconceived notions," said Peterson, author of the book "Why Did They Do That? An Introduction to Forensic Decision Analysis."

    One prominent skeptic said that to find the cooling trend, the 30 years of satellite temperatures must be used. The satellite data tends to be cooler than the ground data. And key is making sure 1998 is part of the trend, he added.

    It's what happens within the past 10 years or so, not the overall average, that counts, contends Don Easterbrook, a Western Washington University geology professor and global warming skeptic.

    "I don't argue with you that the 10-year average for the past 10 years is higher than the previous 10 years," said Easterbrook, who has self-published some of his research. "We started the cooling trend after 1998. You're going to get a different line depending on which year you choose.

    "Should not the actual temperature be higher now than it was in 1998?" Easterbrook asked. "We can play the numbers games."

    That's the problem, some of the statisticians said.

    Grego produced three charts to show how choosing a starting date can alter perceptions. Using the skeptics' satellite data beginning in 1998, there is a "mild downward trend," he said. But doing that is "deceptive."

    The trend disappears if the analysis starts in 1997. And it trends upward if you begin in 1999, he said.

    Apart from the conflicting data analyses is the eyebrow-raising new book title from Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, "Super Freakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance."

    A line in the book says: "Then there's this little-discussed fact about global warming: While the drumbeat of doom has grown louder over the past several years, the average global temperature during that time has in fact decreased."

    That led to a sharp rebuke from the Union of Concerned Scientists, which said the book mischaracterizes climate science with "distorted statistics."

    Levitt, a University of Chicago economist, said he does not believe there is a cooling trend. He said the line was just an attempt to note the irony of a cool couple of years at a time of intense discussion of global warming. Levitt said he did not do any statistical analysis of temperatures, but "eyeballed" the numbers and noticed 2005 was hotter than the last couple of years. Levitt said the "cooling" reference in the book title refers more to ideas about trying to cool the Earth artificially.

    Statisticians say that in sizing up climate change, it's important to look at moving averages of about 10 years. They compare the average of 1999-2008 to the average of 2000-2009. In all data sets, 10-year moving averages have been higher in the last five years than in any previous years.

    "To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous," said Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford.

    Ben Santer, a climate scientist at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore National Lab, called it "a concerted strategy to obfuscate and generate confusion in the minds of the public and policymakers" ahead of international climate talks in December in Copenhagen.

    President Barack Obama weighed in on the topic Friday at MIT. He said some opponents "make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change — claims whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary."

    Earlier this year, climate scientists in two peer-reviewed publications statistically analyzed recent years' temperatures against claims of cooling and found them not valid.

    Not all skeptical scientists make the flat-out cooling argument.

    "It pretty much depends on when you start," wrote John Christy, the Alabama atmospheric scientist who collects the satellite data that skeptics use. He said in an e-mail that looking back 31 years, temperatures have gone up nearly three-quarters of a degree Fahrenheit (four-tenths of a degree Celsius). The last dozen years have been flat, and temperatures over the last eight years have declined a bit, he wrote.

    Oceans, which take longer to heat up and longer to cool, greatly influence short-term weather, causing temperatures to rise and fall temporarily on top of the overall steady warming trend, scientists say. The biggest example of that is El Nino.

    El Nino, a temporary warming of part of the Pacific Ocean, usually spikes global temperatures, scientists say. The two recent warm years, both 1998 and 2005, were El Nino years. The flip side of El Nino is La Nina, which lowers temperatures. A La Nina bloomed last year and temperatures slipped a bit, but 2008 was still the ninth hottest in 130 years of NOAA records.

    Of the 10 hottest years recorded by NOAA, eight have occurred since 2000, and after this year it will be nine because this year is on track to be the sixth-warmest on record.

    The current El Nino is forecast to get stronger, probably pushing global temperatures even higher next year, scientists say. NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt predicts 2010 may break a record, so a cooling trend "will be never talked about again."

  2. #2
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling

    From the thread: US federal Carbon Tax is halfway home ...

    Eric Stoner said:

    "The really sad part is that the Earth is NOT warming. Not one of the dire predictions made by Man-Made Global Warming proponents ten years ago has come to pass. Quite the contrary,since 2001, the Earth has been COOLING."


    Once again, the facts contradict Eric Stoner.

  3. #3
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling

    Its the DOLLAR den.

    I'll be the first to say sometimes I slip down the slippery slope a bit, but I think this one might be near the bottom of the slide.

  4. #4
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling

    This is related, as to whether or not there are legitimate reasons for a carbon tax or Cap and Trade. These issues have been discussed in a number of threads in the dollar den.
    Last edited by eagle2; 10-26-2009 at 11:18 PM.

  5. #5
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling

    agreed that this is arguably relevant, because 'carbon cap and tax' is based on the human caused global warming theory. But at this point, with the US Supreme Court already having ruled that CO2 is a 'pollutant' which can be regulated by gov't agencies, I'm not sure that there is any real purpose in continuing to argue the legitimacy of the theory itself.

  6. #6
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling

    Quote Originally Posted by eagle2 View Post
    From the thread: US federal Carbon Tax is halfway home ...

    Eric Stoner said:

    "The really sad part is that the Earth is NOT warming. Not one of the dire predictions made by Man-Made Global Warming proponents ten years ago has come to pass. Quite the contrary,since 2001, the Earth has been COOLING."


    Once again, the facts contradict Eric Stoner.
    Go fact yourself ! Posted with a smile :-)

    It is undoubtedly true that one set of climate numbers says : "Cooling" and another says : "Warming". Not too long ago I quoted from a September 25, 2009 New York Times story that quoted prominent MMCC Scientific ADVOCATES acknowledging that A. the Earth's temperature has leveled off over the last ten years; B. that it will stay down for 10 to 20 years and C. worrying that these LATEST climate stats would detract from Carbon capping efforts.

    The MMCC advocates apparently can't even agree among themselves what the numbers are let alone what they mean.

    There is nothing; N O T H I N G ; in that AP report that contradicts me or any of my sources. The statisticians noted the downward temperature trend since 1998. That dovetails nicely with what I've been posting i.e. after a period of warming ( since at least 1975 ) the Earth is now cooling. It is MMCC ADVOCATES that have grudgingly acknowledged the cooling since '98 and have predicted another 10 to 20 years of cooling. Of course, they then claim we will start warming up again.
    Last edited by Eric Stoner; 10-27-2009 at 11:54 AM.

  7. #7
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling

    the only 'fact' worth mentioning is that the statisticians who performed this analysis were commissioned by the Associated Press. Yup, it doesn't get any more 'independent' than a news agency paying the researchers who will provide the data for a desired story !

  8. #8
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    the only 'fact' worth mentioning is that the statisticians who performed this analysis were commissioned by the Associated Press. Yup, it doesn't get any more 'independent' than a news agency paying the researchers who will provide the data for a desired story !
    Melonie- Let's not mimic some of our critics. Remember all the finger wagging you've gotten when you post facts and figures from sites and sources that some consider impure ? They NEVER critique the data, just the source.

    The fact that AP commissioned some statisticians ( NOT anyone with Climatology expertise ) and they said that a ten year cooling trend was statistically insignificant is in and of itself virtually meaningless.

    The Earth has experienced a number of periods of warming and cooling lasting hundreds of years. Obviously a decade long trend is not very significant. So what ? The Earth has been warming since the end of The Little Ice Age i.e. since about 1850. That marked the end of a cooling period that started around 1300. and that followed a warming period of hundreds of years etc. etc.
    Last edited by Eric Stoner; 10-29-2009 at 08:11 AM.

  9. #9
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling

    well, given that the Supreme Court has already vested authority with the US congress and EPA to regulate CO2, my interest has moved beyond the theory and to the (impending) consequences !

    By pure coincidence, some 'professional' global warming / cooling based investment recommendations just surfaced ...



    (snip)"Noting there's arguments and counterarguments on both sides of the global warming debate, Altucher declares: "Nobody really knows" whether the globe is heating or cooling or how much is manmade and how much is just the Earth's natural cycle.

    For investors, Atucher says the message is clear: Avoid solar stocks, since solar power is "never efficient" without massive government subsidies.

    For those looking for ways to invest in a global cooling theme, Altucher recommends Campbell's Soup and American Ecology Group, which does waste management - including nuclear waste. "(snip)

  10. #10
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post

    There is nothing; N O T H I N G ; in that AP report that contradicts me or any of my sources. The statisticians noted the downward temperature trend since 1998. That dovetails nicely with what I've been posting i.e. after a period of warming ( since at least 1975 ) the Earth is now cooling. It is MMCC ADVOCATES that have grudgingly acknowledged the cooling since '98 and have predicted another 10 to 20 years of cooling. Of course, they then claim we will start warming up again.
    From the article:

    "Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, fallen again and are now rising once more."


    The article also states that data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998.

  11. #11
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling

    Quote Originally Posted by eagle2 View Post
    From the article:

    "Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, fallen again and are now rising once more."


    The article also states that data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998.
    Sigh.
    It's YOUR Link.
    YOU posted it.
    Did you at least R E A D IT ?????
    BEFORE you posted it ?????
    Obviously not, because if you had, you would have read this part : " John Christy the Alabama scientist who collects the satellite data that skeptics rely on said in an e-mail: : " looking back 31 years temperatures have gone up 3/4 of a degree Farenheit ( .4 Celcius) the last dozen years have been flat and temperatures over the last eight years have declined a bit." For the benefit of everyone else NOT part of YOUR alternate universe: Christy is a recognized climatological expert at the University of Alabama, Huntsville who collects climate data from satellites. Hansen at NASA and lots of other MMCC ADVOCATES rely on his data to help make their case that human activity is causing Climate Change.

    Btw, a number of the MMCC advocates quoted in your link are among the same ninnies who were predicting record hurricane activity for 2007, 2008 and 2009. Instead we've had below normal tropical cyclonic activity. Their predictions on future climate trends are NOT noted for their accuracy. Better yet, going back to YOUR link, the MMCC advocates quoted compared the average temperatures of 1999-2008 to 2000-2009 ????"
    Do they really expect to be taken seriously by anyone with a brain and the slightest faculty for math ? The same people who were just quoted in YOUR article about the importance of ten year averages apparently can't recognize that comparing the temperatures for 1989-1998 to those of 1999-2008 might make a little more sense and be a little more statistically significant ? Ohhhhh ! But that would require
    them to ADMIT that those numbers have gone DOWN and they just can't have that. Better to blow statistical smoke and try to pretend that temps haven't leveled off or have even DECLINED. This very issue and the reaction of these same intellectually corrupt humps to same was noted in the MMCC friendly N.Y. Times article of 9/25/09 that I have often cited to. These scientists KNOW that temps have gone down over the last 8 to 11 years ( depending on whose data you use ) and they can't stand it ! They grudgingly have admitted that the data shows declining temperatures and have been frantically scrambling ever since to try and explain it away. Just a few weeks ago, Al Gore had his pants pulled down at one of his lectures by someone who actually KNEW what he was talking about. The look on Gore's face after getting slapped with actual facts was PRICELESS.


    Do you have any more stuff you'd like to post that helps support my skepticism about MMCC ? I appreciate the assistance.

    Seriously. It used to be a lot more challenging to counter some of your arguments but lately you've been posting stuff that you claim says one thing but upon actual R E A D I N G says something else entirely. All I have to do is just read your links and point out what they actually say.
    Last edited by Eric Stoner; 10-29-2009 at 10:14 AM.

  12. #12
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling

    Statement of Relevance for Dancers : "Dancers have to eat; many drive and have to heat their homes and use electricity. ALL of which has to be paid for. Their mental health has been affected by unecessary worry over a problem that more and more is being PROVEN not to even exist."

    Another pair of pants has been pulled down in the Pro-climate change community. A series of leaked e-mails already dubbed "Climategate". A decade's worth of e-mails were stolen from the University of East Anglia and leaked to the public. They cast serious doubt on the research methods used and validity of much of the data that MMCC advocates have been relying on. One leading climate change scientist from England wrote : "We can't account for the LACK OF WARMING at the moment and it is a travesty tht we can't." Another admitted that he'd hidden the DECLINE by repeating a colleague's "trick" ( HIS word ) used in his article published in NATURE of adding in temperature numbers to "HIDE THE DECLINE ". ( His words)

    The reason this is so important and WHY the lamestream media has largely ignored it is because it calls into serious question much so called research into MMCC. These so called scientists ADMITTED deliberately fudging temperature data. And as I have repeatedly posted, they KNOW that temperatures have been going DOWN and it's driving them nuts.

    The science journal NATURE, where much MMCC agit- prop masquerading as scientific research is published, is flipping out. Just today, they relased a statement claiming that unamed scientists were "unconcerned' about the leaked e-mails and noting the lack of media
    coverage. They claim this somehow affirms the validity of the research that has been called into serious question. I am NOT making this up.
    They are actually circling the wagons to protect their colleagues who were caught red-handed ADMITTING that they knew that temperatures were declining and that they were trying to disguise that fact.

    This follows on the heels of the journal ENVIRONMENT admitting that research projects relying on tree ring data were no longer scientifically valid. No less than eight major papers that were peer reviewed and published have now been shown to have used cherry picked data and have been proven to be worthless. In using tree ring data the scientists ignored just about every local factor such as local soil quality and composition thus invalidating the research. In September of this year the editorial board of ENVIRONMENT said so. Not a peep about it in the N.Y. Times or on any major network.

    Most damning was the discovery that the leading tree ring study that supposedly proved MMCC in fact studied a grand total of three trees in Siberia. Just as damning were all the neighboring trees that they were shown to have examined but which they did not report on because it invalidated their climate history findings. In other words, because those tree rings did not fit the pre-determined conclusion that the Earth is warming beyond where it was before the Little Ice Age, they were left out of the study.

    These guys ; these supposed "scientists' are getting caught making up data to support MMCC.
    Last edited by Eric Stoner; 11-25-2009 at 10:15 AM.

  13. #13
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling

    Again trying to 'corral' the aspects of this thread which may be of direct financial impact for dancers ...

    From past threads it is known that quite a few dancers have chosen to invest in the stock shares of 'green' companies. These dancers should be aware that, regardless of the accuracy of the allegations being made in conjunction with 'Climate-Gate' ... for a fact a number of non-mainstream and non-US financial media sources ( i.e. UK Telegraph, a professional investors' BBS to name a couple ) have begun to publish content that essentially recommends that owners of 'green' company stock shares should seriously consider selling their shares post haste.

    The logic behind such a recommendation is that the 'stand-alone' economics of the vast majority of 'green' companies is not profitable. In other words, in order for these companies to appear to turn a profit, they are dependent on external subsidies such as direct gov't grant money, gov't subsidies to purchasers of their 'green' products, gov't funded tax credits related to the purchase or use of their 'green' products, gov't mandates that indirectly force the purchase of their 'green' products etc.

    Apparently it is felt by a number of hedge funds, professional investors, financial commentators etc. that there is now enough credibility building behind 'Climate-Gate', in conjunction with already existing pressure to reduce severe gov't budget deficits at many levels, that proposals to reduce gov't budget deficits may now safely include reductions or eliminations of 'green' subsidy payments - as publicity for 'Climate-Gate' renders 'green' subsidy reductions to be a more palatable alternative to deep gov't spending cuts for colleges, prisons, cops, road repairs or to further increases in income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes etc. If cuts in gov't subsidies to 'green' companies and 'green' products were to bubble to the top of the gov't deficit reduction proposals, it could have a profound effect on the future profitability ( and survival in some cases ) of those 'green' companies. Thus some pundits are recommending that investors 'cash in now' before they are hit with potential losses in 'green' company share prices. And apparently some investors are already listening, because share prices for a number of 'green' companies were down significantly by today's market close.

    Famous Wall St. adage - ' buy the rumor, sell the news !'



    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 11-24-2009 at 03:43 PM.

  14. #14
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    Again trying to 'corral' the aspects of this thread which may be of direct financial impact for dancers ...

    From past threads it is known that quite a few dancers have chosen to invest in the stock shares of 'green' companies. These dancers should be aware that, regardless of the accuracy of the allegations being made in conjunction with 'Climate-Gate' ... for a fact a number of non-mainstream and non-US financial media sources ( i.e. UK Telegraph, a professional investors' BBS to name a couple ) have begun to publish content that essentially recommends that owners of 'green' company stock shares should seriously consider selling their shares post haste.

    The logic behind such a recommendation is that the 'stand-alone' economics of the vast majority of 'green' companies is not profitable. In other words, in order for these companies to appear to turn a profit, they are dependent on external subsidies such as direct gov't grant money, gov't subsidies to purchasers of their 'green' products, gov't funded tax credits related to the purchase or use of their 'green' products, gov't mandates that indirectly force the purchase of their 'green' products etc.

    Apparently it is felt by a number of hedge funds, professional investors, financial commentators etc. that there is now enough credibility building behind 'Climate-Gate', in conjunction with already existing pressure to reduce severe gov't budget deficits at many levels, that proposals to reduce gov't budget deficits may now safely include reductions or eliminations of 'green' subsidy payments - as publicity for 'Climate-Gate' renders 'green' subsidy reductions to be a more palatable alternative to deep gov't spending cuts for colleges, prisons, cops, road repairs or to further increases in income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes etc. If cuts in gov't subsidies to 'green' companies and 'green' products were to bubble to the top of the gov't deficit reduction proposals, it could have a profound effect on the future profitability ( and survival in some cases ) of those 'green' companies. Thus some pundits are recommending that investors 'cash in now' before they are hit with potential losses in 'green' company share prices. And apparently some investors are already listening, because share prices for a number of 'green' companies were down significantly by today's market close.

    Famous Wall St. adage - ' buy the rumor, sell the news !'

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/

    ~
    Yes and it's an amazing coincidence that some of the leading MMCC "scientists" own, work for , get money from or are invested in some of these "Green" companies. Gore and GE are heavily invested in technology that will decrease in value and maybe even become worthless if the problems in the climate change advocacy community gain any more traction.

    It is starting to become reminiscent of BOTH the Global Cooling scare of the 70's AND the Dot.com bubble of the 1990's. Investors in these companies should definitely beware and consider selling. The discrediting of the G.C. alarmists will probably get worse as more info comes out. Already they have been caught deleting and destroying files. The journal ENVIRONMENT has ADMIITTED that its "peer review" process failed. Articles were published BEFORE they were vetted and BEFORE the data was checked. That is completely bassackwards to how the process is SUPPOSED to work.

    Btw, the East Anglia scientists exposed are NOT fringe players in the MMCC debate. They are prominent activists for MMCC and their work is heavily relied on by the U.N.
    Last edited by Eric Stoner; 11-25-2009 at 01:11 PM.

  15. #15
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    agreed that this is arguably relevant, because 'carbon cap and tax' is based on the human caused global warming theory. But at this point, with the US Supreme Court already having ruled that CO2 is a 'pollutant' which can be regulated by gov't agencies, I'm not sure that there is any real purpose in continuing to argue the legitimacy of the theory itself.
    It is no more relevant to SW than a discussion of recent tax law discussions; that is it is generally relevant, but not specific to this sub-population. Besides ES is nowhere near educated enough to be an interpreter of expert opinion. Nor are the rest of us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Statement of Relevance for Dancers : "Dancers have to eat; many drive and have to heat their homes and use electricity. ALL of which has to be paid for. Their mental health has been affected by unecessary worry over a problem that more and more is being PROVEN not to even exist.".
    Now that is durned LAME.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  16. #16
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Statement of Relevance for Dancers : "Dancers have to eat; many drive and have to heat their homes and use electricity. ALL of which has to be paid for. Their mental health has been affected by unecessary worry over a problem that more and more is being PROVEN not to even exist."
    Do you think it is just a coincidence that 9 of the 10 hottest years on record all occurred in the last 10 years?

  17. #17
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling ( outlook for 'green' energy stock

    It is no more relevant to SW than a discussion of recent tax law discussions; that is it is generally relevant, but not specific to this sub-population
    I would judge this particular topic ( a future carbon tax in the USA, a pending carbon tax in Australia, an existing carbon tax in Ontario etc. ) to be less relevant than tax law discussions, on the basis that every dancer will be directly and personally affected by tax law changes. This doesn't mean that every dancer won't also be indirectly affected by a (potential or actual) carbon tax causing general price increases on many things that both she and her customers must buy, and in turn generally leaving less 'discretionary spending' money available in the pockets of club customers with which to finance future trips to their club. While the latter is a distinct possibility ( or reality in Ontario ), the indirect effect cannot be documented in actual personal differential dollar terms the way that an increasing future year effective tax rate on X dollars of annual dancer income can.


    Do you think it is just a coincidence that 9 of the 10 hottest years on record all occurred in the last 10 years?
    This aspect of the discussion is clearly off topic for Dollar Den. Ontario already has a carbon tax. Australia has already approved a carbon tax. The US supreme court has already authorized the regulation of CO2, and the US president is very probably going to sign onto some sort of carbon tax agreement at Copenhagen ... see . As such, continuing to argue the validity of human caused global warming theory is a non-issue from the standpoint of any present and future economic consequences of carbon taxes. And once enacted, the fact that carbon taxes may or may not have been justified on the basis of a human caused global warming theory is totally irrelevant - since, once enacted, the probability of any tax ever being repealed is close to zero. This is even true in countries where some politicians are willing to forfeit their political careers in protest ... ... because the overall percentage of such politicians will be even lower than the odds of repeal.

    What IS relevant is that these carbon taxes are either already in place or just around the corner, that they will have significant economic consequences to the general economy, and that as providers of very 'non-essential' services exotic dancers are likely to feel a disproportionate economic impact.

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 11-29-2009 at 07:02 AM.

  18. #18
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling ( outlook for 'green' energy stock

    ^^ They don't affect dancers any more than they affect anyone else. <--my point
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  19. #19
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling ( outlook for 'green' energy stock

    ^^^ the 'gold foil hat' crowd would probably take issue with that conclusion. From a ruthlessly cold economic analysis viewpoint, exotic dancers are like vacations and landscapers ... they are far down the list of 'non-essential' items, and there are several lower cost options available. As such, anything that will have an 'across the board' effect of reducing what remains of 'discretionary spending budget' after taxes and essential bills are paid is going to have a disproportionately high effect on 'customer' spending for vacations or landscaping or lap dances.

  20. #20
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling

    Quote Originally Posted by eagle2 View Post
    Do you think it is just a coincidence that 9 of the 10 hottest years on record all occurred in the last 10 years?
    Baloney. The whole point is that MMCC ADVOCATES were caught cooking numbers to try and explain away eleven ( 11 ) years of NO INCREASE since 1998 and evidence of Global Cooling. Prominent ADVOCATES were caught admitting and bemoaning the stability and then DECLINE of global temperatures.
    MMCC is legitimately comparable to the Global Cooling Scare of 1975 and the Great Shark Scare of 2001.

  21. #21
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling ( outlook for 'green' energy stock

    ^^^ please drop the argument about the scientific validity of MMCC, or lack thereof, in the Dollar Den. For a fact this side of the issue will have NO practical effect upon the ( future ) imposition of carbon taxes. Those decisions have either already been implemented ( Canada ), already committed and approved but yet to be implemented ( Australia ), or are already decided in principle but yet to be nailed down to specifics ( America ). In fact, the United Nations released a statement this morning ... ... to the effect that the UN's position on carbon taxes / carbon treaties is not going to be changed. Undoubtedly most gov'ts will follow the UN's lead in this regard, meaning that carbon taxes are merely a matter of time.

  22. #22
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling ( outlook for 'green' energy stock

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ^^^ please drop the argument about the scientific validity of MMCC, or lack thereof, in the Dollar Den. For a fact this side of the issue will have NO practical effect upon the ( future ) imposition of carbon taxes. Those decisions have either already been implemented ( Canada ), already committed and approved but yet to be implemented ( Australia ), or are already decided in principle but yet to be nailed down to specifics ( America ). In fact, the United Nations released a statement this morning ... http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-leaked-emails ... to the effect that the UN's position on carbon taxes / carbon treaties is not going to be changed. Undoubtedly most gov'ts will follow the UN's lead in this regard, meaning that carbon taxes are merely a matter of time.
    Yes maam.

  23. #23
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling ( outlook for 'green' energy stock

    Well, I hate to admit it, but there is a chance that the analysts and I may be incorrect in assuming that 'carbon taxes' are a fait accompli just waiting to happen ...



    (snip)"SYDNEY – Australia's plans for an emissions trading system to combat global warming were scuttled Wednesday in Parliament, handing a defeat to a government that had hoped to set an example at international climate change talks next week.

    The Senate, where Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's government does not hold a majority, rejected his administration's proposal for Australia to become one of the first countries to install a so-called cap-and-trade system to slash the amount of heat-trapping pollution that industries pump into the air.

    The 41-33 vote followed a tumultuous debate in which the conservative main opposition party at first agreed to support a version of the government's bill, then dramatically dumped its leader and switched sides after bitter divisions erupted within the party."(snip)

    From a Dollar Den standpoint, this doesn't change the above comments re the negative future prospects for gov't subsidy dependent 'green' industries. In fact, it arguably increases those negative future prospects if a reduced or never enacted carbon tax based cost differential makes those 'green' industries even less cost competitive versus their conventional competitors. But, hey, anything can happen when the economics of a particular market segment are more dependent on gov't policy than on real supply / demand / cost based fundamentals.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 52
    Last Post: 11-25-2010, 09:18 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-17-2009, 07:26 AM
  3. Global Cooling
    By Eric Stoner in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 03-04-2008, 01:27 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-03-2005, 02:10 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •