cobran20

Debunking The Man-Made Global Warming Myth Consensus

201 posts in this topic

That is the very definition of a guru going for a bet both ways. As I said, to change the words: "Brexit will win unless they steal it".

Tell me how he could be wrong with that prediction? Seriously you can't possibly come up with an actual event in that vote which would not match his prediction.

Which in my mind is the hallmark of every snake oil sales man ever.

I mean less people were killed in whichever part it was of europe than the hellhole in florida during the period of the conference that he wouldn't go to because "the computer said it was too dangerous". (I checked a few weeks after)

Basically it is cheaper for him to hold a convention in a city which depends on them and is dying and desperate to attract hucksters and there are more americans into his gloom and doom than euros generally (I think).

For someone that claims the market is "an atm for him" I don't see why he charges for his advice. But he does and swaize is the only person I know even trying to use armstrongs predictions to trade and he says they are sh*t I believe. Maybe armstrong is having the same problems with trading his own advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, tor said:

That is the very definition of a guru going for a bet both ways. As I said, to change the words: "Brexit will win unless they steal it".

Tell me how he could be wrong with that prediction? Seriously you can't possibly come up with an actual event in that vote which would not match his prediction.

Which in my mind is the hallmark of every snake oil sales man ever.

I mean less people were killed in whichever part it was of europe than the hellhole in florida during the period of the conference that he wouldn't go to because "the computer said it was too dangerous". (I checked a few weeks after)

Basically it is cheaper for him to hold a convention in a city which depends on them and is dying and desperate to attract hucksters and there are more americans into his gloom and doom than euros generally (I think).

For someone that claims the market is "an atm for him" I don't see why he charges for his advice. But he does and swaize is the only person I know even trying to use armstrongs predictions to trade and he says they are sh*t I believe. Maybe armstrong is having the same problems with trading his own advice.

Thanks for that rant. I'm monitoring the performance of his model (aka Socrates) not his opinions. That is the service he plans to sell for a fee. To repeat myself for you again, Socrates predicted Brexit, Trump, et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, cobran20 said:

The evidence is not 100% conclusive that any warming is man made, 

 

There are few issues where there is 100% proof of causation. Smoking increases your risk of a variety of cancers, right? There has never been the highest medical level research (double blind cross-over placebo) that proves it. It doesn't mean that we don't come to the conclusion that smoking increases your risk of cancers. The best research says it does. 

The proven effects of carbon emissions on human health are reason alone to try to stop it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zaph said:

There are few issues where there is 100% proof of causation. Smoking increases your risk of a variety of cancers, right? There has never been the highest medical level research (double blind cross-over placebo) that proves it. It doesn't mean that we don't come to the conclusion that smoking increases your risk of cancers. The best research says it does. 

The proven effects of carbon emissions on human health are reason alone to try to stop it. 

You stop smoking and there are both positive health & financial benefits for the individual (probably none for the government as revenues from tax on tobacco exceed extra health costs to Medicare). What is being proposed for an energy alternative is a major impost on the public, for what is currently an unreliable source of energy. Given that the science accusing human actions as the cause is not 100% conclusive, it doesn't get my vote.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2017 at 9:02 AM, staringclown said:

Thanks for the link cobran. It's difficult to get a clear picture from the raw data.

This one from the BOM shows data from the Sydney Observatory and has the ability to highlight the stats according to long term averages (since 1859). The warming trend is pretty clear when you select 'median or more'.

Sydney Observatory long term monthly average

This is presumably quoting data from the BOM:

Sydney sweats through a sweltering Sunday with 120-year record in play

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cobran20 said:

Given that the science accusing human actions as the cause is not 100% conclusive, it doesn't get my vote.

 

 

Then neither should smoking causing cancer or falling out of an aircraft causing death. Neither have 100% been proven by a double-blind crossover placebo trial. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All things being equal we have to admit:

Cobran has kids that have to deal with the world we leave, Zaph, clown and I don't (I don't think)

Cobran has to pay for his kids to go to school, Zaph, clown and I don't (I don't think)

Cobran argues that school should be expensive (and he is not rich) and that the climate should be governed in terms of corporate interest (and he makes no money from that) so I would say at least he is not arguing out of vested interests.

(I mean I'd hate to be his kid but I am guessing he would hate me as his kid so that balances out).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, tor said:

Cobran argues that school should be expensive (and he is not rich) and that the climate should be governed in terms of corporate interest (and he makes no money from that) so I would say at least he is not arguing out of vested interests.

(I mean I'd hate to be his kid but I am guessing he would hate me as his kid so that balances out).

Whatever you're on ... seek help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I misinterpreted your opinions? Schools should be free? Global warming does exist? or you have vested interests?

Which one was I wrong on?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tor said:

I misinterpreted your opinions? Schools should be free? Global warming does exist? or you have vested interests?

Which one was I wrong on?

Exactly where did I say that there should be no public schooling? In fact I would utterly refuse to have sent my kids to a private school. Both went to the local public schools.

Show me a UN report that shows absolute irrefutable proof that any climate warming directly caused by human action, before squillions are taxed out of the population. But then you're probably the feelgood lefty that will happily squander tax monies on half baked ideas (like Krudd on flammable roof insulation and inflated prices on school infrastructure), leaving the next generation to pay for it, which since you don't have any kids, you don't have to give a flying f@ck about that. Close to the mark?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Free university was what I was talking about. Remember your "some people won't use it properly so no one should get it" argument?

Not sure where you pulled public schools from I don't believe we have ever discussed that before. Are you forgetting the topics discussed?

Man I hope to f*ck you're not a believer in a deity or free will :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cobran20 said:

But then you're probably the feelgood lefty that will happily squander tax monies on half baked ideas (like Krudd on flammable roof insulation and inflated prices on school infrastructure)

1

The Krudd insulation scheme will go down in history as one of the best economic and environmental  policies. It got a lot of people employed very quickly and contributed to oz avoiding a recession. A few houses burnt, big deal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, zaph said:

The Krudd insulation scheme will go down in history as one of the best economic and environmental  policies. It got a lot of people employed very quickly and contributed to oz avoiding a recession. A few houses burnt, big deal. 

There was never going to be a recession as China was still buying our rocks. Krudd should have waited for clear confirmation that the economy was in recession before blowing the hard earned surplus his government inherited as p!ssed away into a substantial deficit, that will need to be repaid by belt tightening that nobody wants now. As to its effectiveness...

Pink batts debacle teaches government costly lessons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, tor said:

Free university was what I was talking about. Remember your "some people won't use it properly so no one should get it" argument?

Not sure where you pulled public schools from I don't believe we have ever discussed that before. Are you forgetting the topics discussed?

Man I hope to f*ck you're not a believer in a deity or free will :)

I think your state of mind has degenerated further. In your original post you clearly stated:

Quote

Cobran argues that school should be expensive (and he is not rich)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, zaph said:

Then neither should smoking causing cancer or falling out of an aircraft causing death. Neither have 100% been proven by a double-blind crossover placebo trial. 

You're still entitled to smoke if you want, irrespective of whether you believe it causes cancer or not. The current law allows it with restrictions aimed at protecting those who don't want to breathe in your smoke.

As to whether falling out of an aircraft causes death - is that whilst the aircraft is parked on the ground or up in the air?! ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, cobran20 said:

You're still entitled to smoke if you want, irrespective of whether you believe it causes cancer or not. The current law allows it with restrictions aimed at protecting those who don't want to breathe in your smoke.

As to whether falling out of an aircraft causes death - is that whilst the aircraft is parked on the ground or up in the air?! ^_^

 

My post was in relation to your correct claim that there is not 100% proof that humans cause/contribute to global warming. 100% proof is never provided before action is taken. A double-blind trial is the highest level of evidence. Neither smoking or falling out of an aircraft have been studied in a double-blind trial. To do so would be unethical and stupid given the retrospective studies we have of smoking and our understanding of gravity. I'm willing to go into evidence hierarchy, but that's probably another thread.  

There is enough evidence to conclude that carbon emissions lead to global warming. There doesn't, can't, and never will be 100% proof. The question for me is - so what? Why should we stop global warming? The 'so what' of global warming is rarely addressed past the ocean will rise and there be more extreme weather. 

There's undeniable evidence that burning fossil fuels increases fine particle matter and carcinogens in the atmosphere. That alone is reason to stop using fossil fuels and look for alternatives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zaph said:

My post was in relation to your correct claim that there is not 100% proof that humans cause/contribute to global warming. 100% proof is never provided before action is taken. A double-blind trial is the highest level of evidence. Neither smoking or falling out of an aircraft have been studied in a double-blind trial. To do so would be unethical and stupid given the retrospective studies we have of smoking and our understanding of gravity. I'm willing to go into evidence hierarchy, but that's probably another thread.  

There is enough evidence to conclude that carbon emissions lead to global warming. There doesn't, can't, and never will be 100% proof. The question for me is - so what? Why should we stop global warming? The 'so what' of global warming is rarely addressed past the ocean will rise and there be more extreme weather. 

There's undeniable evidence that burning fossil fuels increases fine particle matter and carcinogens in the atmosphere. That alone is reason to stop using fossil fuels and look for alternatives. 

The earth has gone through multiple cycles of warming and cooling, starting from long before humans could be even vaguely responsible. So exactly how much of the presumed warming is caused by humans vs natural cycles? Has the forecasted doom scenarios and timelines materialised so far? All I've seen is clowns like Flannery wearing a lot of egg on their face after sucking on the tax payers' teat.

As I keep repeating, what is being imposed on society is not a minor change, but something that represents a major impost for what is currently an unreliable alternative.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5 February 2017 at 9:18 AM, tor said:

Armstrong found reliable data that meets cobrans standards, it doesn't matter where from.

It certainly doesn't seem to. Armstrong gets to use unattributed data going back centuries completely unquestioned as it doesn't question Cobran's confirmation bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm struggling to understand how any decision anyone ever has made fits your 0% risk strategy. All innovation involves risk. No technological advance in human history has ever been any different. It's generally government's rather than private enterprise that invest in new technology either directly through R&D or through subsidies. These include 

  • Railways
  • Universities
  • Highways (automobiles)
  • Agriculture
  • computers and internet
  • Just about everything else...

The reason being that private enterprise don't have the money and are typically as risk averse as you are Cobran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, staringclown said:

I'm struggling to understand how any decision anyone ever has made fits your 0% risk strategy. All innovation involves risk. No technological advance in human history has ever been any different. It's generally government's rather than private enterprise that invest in new technology either directly through R&D or through subsidies. These include 

  • Railways
  • Universities
  • Highways (automobiles)
  • Agriculture
  • computers and internet
  • Just about everything else...

The reason being that private enterprise don't have the money and are typically as risk averse as you are Cobran.

Google, Apple, MS$ and others were started and took off because of governments?!! The difference between private enterprise and governments is that with the former it is their money that gets spent and they go bankrupt if they fail. With the latter, it is not their money, so no real pressure and the tax payer can always bail them out. I see it just about every day in a tertiary institution and a NSW state department I contracted to in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now