Must see: The Great Global Warming Swindle

You'll be disappointed...

He's both

 

Thank you very much for your clarification. But I still not clear about GLOBAL WARMING.

Don't we already have different warmer and cooler on different day, month and year for the last few million years. Don't we We already have different warmer and cooler extent for the last few million years? Don't we already have different cooler and warmer on different location for the last few million years? Is this something new?

If it is not necessary warming, if it is not necessary global, why it is GLOBAL WARMING? Should it be just plain old random local temperature changes?

Let me sum it up:

1) It is not necessarily warming.
2) It is not necessarily Global.
3) It is not necessarily all the time.
4) It is NOT proven human did it.
5) If it is warming, there is next to nothing human can do anything about it.
6) It is not necessarily damaging even if it is warming.
7) Whatever you try to STOP global warming the cost would be much more than the possible damage caused by global warming and would not be effective.
8) The GWer are trying to have a GLOBAL solution for random local problem.

You may not know it, but the first 3 points are yours!!!

 

Soon after the Carbon Tax is enacted, and increased several times, we will be hearing news reports about how well the reduction in carbon is working, with reports of record lows, record snow fall, although this is the coldest April in the US in 113 years with few news reports.
By then the earth will be cycling towards another cooling period.



Here's some more bad news. I hope the masses of sheeple don't find out.

Sudden Cooling of World Oceans Revealed by New Research
Friday August 18, 2006
http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/sudden-cooling-of-world-oceans-revealed-by-new-research

The world’s oceans cooled suddenly between 2003 and 2005, losing more than 20 percent of the global warming heat they’d absorbed over the previous 50 years! That’s a vast amount of heat, since the oceans hold 1000 times as much heat as the atmosphere. The ocean-cooling researchers say the heat was likely vented into space, since it hasn’t been found stored anywhere on Earth.

John Lyman, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, says the startling news of ocean cooling comes courtesy of the new ARGO ocean temperature floats being distributed worldwide. ARGOs are filling in former blank spots on the world’s ocean monitoring system—and vastly narrowing our past uncertainty about sparsely measured ocean temperatures....

The new ocean cooling also recalls several NASA studies in the last five years that found a huge natural heat vent over the Warm Pool of the Pacific. Studies coordinated by Bruce Weilicki, of NASA’s Langley Research Center, found that when sea surface temperatures rise above 28 degrees C, Pacific rainfall becomes more efficient. More of the cloud droplets form raindrops, so fewer are left to form high, icy, cirrus clouds that seal in heat. As a result, the area of cirrus cloud is reduced, and far more heat passes out into space. This cools the surface of the world’s warmest ocean water.

Weilicki’s research teams say that the huge natural heat vent emitted about as much heat during the 1980s and 90s as would be expected from a redoubling of the CO2 content in the air.

Weilicki says the heat-vent’s previously unknown changes in the global energy budget were two to four times larger than scientists had previously believed possible. “Several of the world’s top climate modeling research groups agreed to take on the challenge of reproducing the tropical cloud changes. But the climate models failed the test, predicting smaller-than-observed variability by factors of two to four.”.....

 

Hello traders: isn't this similar to a failed "back testing".

If the "climate models" needs more tweaking to work, isn't this curve fitting?

 

No.

 

Hello, hello, hello. "No." is too simple. It is not an answer. You need to support your argument.

Let me try it once more:

If your trading system fail to make money with historic data, would you continue to trust it to trade and trust it to be profitable the future?

If you keep tweaking your trading system until it start making money with historical data, it is call curve fitting. Your trading system still can not be expect to make money in live data.

If a weather model system failed to duplicate previous occurrence with historical data, how can we trust the weather model system will accurately predict future occurrence?

 

curve fitting, as it relates to stock price movement, relies on one parameter price, well I suppose volume is often included as well, but the system you describe, a tweaked trading system, doesn't even attempt to include any other influencing inputs. (Weather, Don Imus, CPI, etc ..)

Climate models, like all statistical regression formulas, include as many parameters that are thought to influence the result, in this case temperature.

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/3h.html

but they are certainly as prone to generate false posivites ...
you have a point though ... and I've argued it before as a matter of fact.


It's a very good analogy, if not a perfect one.

 

I didn't define ANY trading system. It is any trading system you want to create. You set whatever parameters you want to set. As many parameters, factors, elements, variables or inputs you want in any trading system. My premises remain the same: success with historical data is not indicative of future success.
The same apply to weather system models.

"...but they are certainly as prone to generate fail posivites ... "

I agree you the last sentence in your response.

 

I agree, it's a very good analogy... but we are talking about a natural system versus the pyschology of man. It is more difficult to include as an input the WTC buildings falling to the ground than an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

You can model an apple falling to the earth far greater than stock prices. Even if the apple fell in an apparent chaotic, unpredictable manner, it still seems more likely that a model could be devised that is more accurate than a tweaked trading system.

(i modified my original response, it's more legible ...)

 

On second thought ...... Is the pyschology of man a natural system?


If I'm consistent, I should argue that it is... So, I maybe completely wrong