Here are ALL TEN global data sets included in one graph. Every single one shows warming. Can you seriously look at that and still claim no warming over the last 18 years?
-
So, no studying PtoE, company fundamentals, etc. etc. Further proving that the Stock Market is almost entirely disconnected from the underlying companies. Basically, it's a Ponzi scheme.
This is true mostly for new or trendy companies in trendy spaces. Boring companies that have been around for a long time are often priced based on the future dividends they're expected to pay. They don't get any attention, though, because those that make money on speculating can't make any money by trading them. The speculators and brokers don't want people paying attention to fundamentals. Volumes would plummet so how would they make money? There would be no churn. And then they'd have to sell the million dollar Manhattan apartment where they keep their mistress.
It's similar to the difference between trading Beanie Babies (or whatever faddy collectible is popular now) and something like wheat.
The US government would have invested Social Security in the Stock Market, but they can't find a spokesperson from the financial industry you can advocate the scheme without drooling at the prospect.
The US government already invests that money by spending it and leaving a bond in its place.
And how did they invest it? Well, there are some big craters in Iraq and Afghanistan now. Bingo halls and casinos also seem to have profited.
He seems to have intuited this.
Well, just because the missed advertising didn't affect sales yet, there's no guarantee that would continue to hold. Eventually someone would fill the advertising vacuum and they'd have a turf war on their hands.
Wow, that's some comedy gold right there!
We do something similar with our tool releases at work. The release notes indicate bugs that were filed on a previous release and closed with the current release, and if there are open issues what the open issues are. (Usually, it's something very obscure, otherwise it would be fixed.) We do something similar with chip errata. The errata document states which chip revisions are affected, and thus implicitly what chip revision fixes the issue.
Thus, we actually have a two tiered approach. There's the internal system(s) that tracks bugs against the actual development. So, if a bug shows up in a development version, developers and internal testers can file bugs on each other. All that noise has absolutely no business going outside the development team, as it's really just developer-to-developer communication. Then there's the customer issue tracking system. Customer-reported bugs get filed in that system, and they get their own ticket number, and it gets tied to a bug filed in the internal system. The customer bug reports are the ones we comment on in the release notes, along with any notable bugs we discovered in internal testing that customers may not have hit yet.
Disclaimer: My description above is a loose description of the processes we employ at work, and there is variation across teams and business units. It isn't intended to be rigorous. I'm only commenting on my team and teams I've worked closely with. The principle is the same, though. Our dirty laundry (the internal bug tracking system) stays internal. Externally reported bugs get tracked somewhat more opaquely, simply connecting the bug report to the release it's fixed in. It seems quite reasonable to me.
Whine whine... the people complaining this character or that character is overpowered. Quit whining that everything has to be NERFED just because you suck and you lost the battle. The Superman character comes with a sysop root account on the game server. So what? Deal with it and quit whining.
-
https://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.cfm
Is that the statement you were referring to?
Correct. They adopted that statement (or a substantially equivalent statement) back in 2007.
Prior to that, they had a denialism statement. As I said, American Petroleum Geologists were the last scientific body of national or international standing to offer any hint of support to climate denialism.
There are many scientific bodies in unrelated fields that have never commented on the subject. There's the American Petroleum Geologists and perhaps some others with statements that carefully dodge having a position, but there's not one scientific body of national or international standing opposed to the effectively unanimous agreement by climate scientists that Global Warming is real and that it is directly a result of CO2 and other man-made causes.
-
Let me help you with that.
Here is the graph you're looking for, showing continuous cooling trends from 1965 to 2013.5
The bottomline is there has been no warming statistically different from natural variation for at least 18 years
The bottom line is that you have given absolutely no rational reason for ignoring vast bodies of data proving your assertion is false.
You eagerly embrace the RSS graph for the sole reason that, on this arbitrarily selected time interval, it happens to give a linear trend line with a small enough warming to dismiss as negligible.
I asked if you had an rational reason from selecting the RSS data set, and you had none. I asked what you would do if I selected a different time interval, one where RSS showed warming and UAH didn't. You did not deny that you would have irrationally reject the RSS dataset and irrationally latched onto the UAH set.
You are flatly ignoring a MULTITUDE of global surface data sets showing the earth has in fact warmed over the last 18 years.
You have flatly ignored the ocean data set, a data set which you have not contested carries 45 times more weight than any atmospheric data. A data set which reflects 90% of the climate warming as opposed to the 2% warming that happens in the atmosphere. A data set which shows a perfectly steady warming rate for many decades. A data set which shows there has been absolutely zero slowdown in warming over the last 18 years.
You ignored virtually the entirety of data. You latched onto one cherrypicked fragment that most nearly fit what you wanted to find, tailored to this utterly arbitrary 18 year example. You have given no rational reason for latching onto this cherrypicked datapoint.
Can you really not see that this is a textbook case of Confirmation bias?
Can you really not see that what you have just done is exactly what I did in the 1965-2013.5 graph I linked above?
-
Buggy whip makers may have gone the way of the horse and buggy, but those who make riding crops have found themselves a niche in which to prosper.
The trick is to adapt.
Find a niche and scratch it...
"Remember, extremism in the nondefense of moderation is not a virtue." -- Peter Neumann, about usenet