Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global
- Thread starter jficquette
- Start date
Axiomatic.
Quote from Gabfly1:
How confident would you be in a broker who tried to sell you shares of a company whose stock was underwritten by their investment banking department? Would you just swallow the sales pitch whole? Keep on grasping:
That is what is going on here. You have thieving politicians(brokers) trying to sell you on an idea that was ginned up by a bunch of lying scientists and beaucrats(Investment Department).
Is the attachment not visible to you? Do you not remember all of the "science" presented by "experts" who dismissed any hazards associated with smoking? Do you not remember who funded the "research" that resulted in those "scientific findings?" Can you really not follow the bread crumb trail here:
You're right, of course. The interesting conclusion that I reached some time ago was that it didn't matter what information I disclosed about trading -- that many wouldn't understand it anyway, that those who did understand it and it disagreed with any preconceived notion would dismiss it in order to preserve the ego that their previous concepts were correct, and, of the rest, almost none would actually implement the ideas.
Hence the quote from Seykota that we get want we want from the markets.
So far -
We have russkies saying the data set was incomplete.
we have emails from the lead researchers showing they manipulated data --
on the other side
So I asked for the best evidence of global warming and
I got a study conducted on a volcano which shows CO2 rising.
I do not know where you guys were trained - but I generally look for cause and effect.
-----
As a trader I might go with the trend and bet CO2 and the temperature is rising.
I might even go long CO2 rising and short the temperature - in case the man made global warming trade is wrong .
I might even theorize the cause -- but I would know that I did not have proof.
So far -
We have russkies saying the data set was incomplete.
we have emails from the lead researchers showing they manipulated data --
on the other side
So I asked for the best evidence of global warming and
I got a study conducted on a volcano which shows CO2 rising.
I do not know where you guys were trained - but I generally look for cause and effect.
-----
As a trader I might go with the trend and bet CO2 and the temperature is rising.
I might even go long CO2 rising and short the temperature - in case the man made global warming trade is wrong .
I might even theorize the cause -- but I would know that I did not have proof.
Quote from Gabfly1:
Is the attachment not visible to you? Do you not remember all of the "science" presented by "experts" who dismissed any hazards associated with smoking? Do you not remember who funded the "research" that resulted in those "scientific findings?" Can you really not follow the bread crumb trail here:
Your attachment is a "red x".
In this case the global warming crowd are the tobacco advocates because they are lying just to sell their ideas.
The government wants more money. They give money out to scientists who are on the government research grant tit with the implicit understanding that they want certain results.
Government this uses the maniplated data to push its cap and trade to create revenues that they can use to expand government which give the Socialists more control.
Its pretty simple.
What exactly does global warming have to do with smoking? Nice strawman argument.
Umm... actually what you have is 1) Russian economic think tank versus 2) climatology data which you didn't really understand and therefore dismissed.
Thus you gave them equal weight in your mind.
Yea sure - I don't really understand but you do. Luckily - I know bias when I see it.
So I asked for your best evidence and you gave me a graph of CO2 measured from the side of a volcano.
Now I am not saying your assumption is incorrect. I am saying you have not shown me anything which rises to the level of proof of man made global warming.