Seeking Alpha

Robert Wagner

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Robert Wagner's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Investors' Guide To El Nino, Climate Change And Summer Weather Forecast [View article]
    You can't make this stuff up. Environmentalists are holding up California Solar Projects. You simply can't win. They did the same for the wind farms in Martha Vineyard. Jerry Brown has the right approach. If the environmentalists are going to block the projects, they should be required to provide a better and workable solution.

    http://abcn.ws/1uPEKxT
    Aug 18 09:38 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Investors' Guide To El Nino, Climate Change And Summer Weather Forecast [View article]
    BTW, CO2 is a constant 400PPM in the atmosphere. In other words it is a "constant." In any real science constants aren't used to explain variation. The problem with this climate change nonsense is that the N-Hemi has a different temperature slope than the S-Hemi, meaning that the N-Hemi is warming to a greater extent/faster than the S-Hemi. Any real scientist would try to find out what is different between the N and S Hemi that might be causing the change. Any real scientist would ask:
    1) What is causing the temperature difference between the N and S Hemishere
    2) What has changed between the N and S Hemi that might be causing warming
    3) What is the most potent green house gas

    Well, any real scientist would look for changes, not constants to explain what is causing temperature variation.

    Well, we know H2O is by far the most potent green house gas, and we know plants create much of the atmospheric H2O through transpiration. Rain Forests create their own cloud systems, and sailors look for clouds to identify tropical islands. BTW, there are few clouds above non-coastal Antarctica.

    Is there evidence then that there has been a change in the largest GGH producers in the N-Hemi vs the S-Hemi? Yep, 30% more plants means more atmospheric H2O, and more rain forest like heat trapping. Funny how the IPCC ignores the variation if the producers of the most potent green house gas, and instead focuses on CO2, a constant. Climate scientists simply choose to ignore the obvious.

    The peer-reviewed Geophysical Research Letters reported Earth is undergoing substantial greening as a result of higher carbon dioxide levels and more-favorable weather conditions. Plant life is flourishing, and foliage is becoming more prevalent all across the globe as Earth warms, with the most impressive gains observed in arid regions bordering deserts. The western United States is among the big winners, with many regions in the U.S. West experiencing 30 percent or greater increases in foliage during the past 30 years.
    http://bit.ly/1mXDzo1
    Aug 17 09:44 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Investors' Guide To El Nino, Climate Change And Summer Weather Forecast [View article]
    Canadian, you have a very very very odd way of analyzing data and applying the scientific method. You're MO seems to be to 1) attack those who disagree with your position 2) Ignore/discredit any source that disagrees with you're position even though the data clearly supports the conclusion reached and 3) fully support "peer reviewed" "scientists" whose output, the IPCC Models, have been rejected at the 95% confidence level. You fully support "scientists" whose "peer reviewed" process can't even hindcast climate, let alone forecast it. These "scientists" that you trust can't even make their cases using computer models using clearly fraudulent techniques like "hide the decline" and "nature trick." You rely on "scientists," theories and concepts that when put into a computer model to test get totally rejected. Bernie Maydoff can build better computer models than IPCC "scientists."

    You are like the people of OZ, content not to look behind the curtain, and just keep living a lie and in fear.

    Obvious problems you seem to be willing to overlook.

    1) CO2 levels collapse during ice ages. Where does that CO2 go? Outerspace? The ground? Where does all that CO2 go? I would image that where the CO2 goes is also where the CO2 comes from when it warms? Simple logic 101. Well where does all that CO2 and and them emerge from? The oceans. Funny how CO2 has been increasing and the oceans have been increasing in temperature. What warms the Oceans? The sun.

    http://bit.ly/1lbnxw0

    2) CO2 and temperatures are simply not related on a cause and effect basis. Temperature and CO2 however are related on a cause and effect basis, as the ice core data demonstrates. As the earth cools, CO2 drops, as it warms CO2 increases. CO2 isn't the driver, it is the result of warming. Care to argue against that fundamental point? Then explain what causes CO2 to increase BEFORE the ending of an ice age. By what mechanism? There is none. That is checkmate in any real science. You can't even explain/defend the basics of your theory.

    3) The "Hockeystick" using techniques like "hide the decline" and "nature trick" passed peer review, and was exposed as a fraud by a non-peer reviewed real scientist. No real peer review system would have passed such an obvious fraud.

    4) Analysis of ice core data demonstrates that today's climate is not out of the norm for the past 10k years.

    I could go on and on and on, but the point is all you have are "opinions" of "scientists" that can't even produce models to make their case, and whose "peer reviewed" process passed the 'Hockeystick" on as credible research. You simply choose to be fooled, and buy the lie. That is all this is about. People simply want to believe in a lie.
    Aug 17 09:05 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Investors' Guide To El Nino, Climate Change And Summer Weather Forecast [View article]
    This is pretty funny..., actually it would be funny if it weren't true.

    Inconvenient Truth of Alarmists' failed predictions
    Source: Living Green
    Why do people still listen to the alarmist scientists? Their threats of doom and gloom have failed to materialise over and over again.
    http://bit.ly/1qc9WAg

    Here is a real statistical analysis of the IPCC models. Basically the IPCC models are garbage, and yet, everyone keeps promoting them.

    In statistical parlance, if the observed trend drops beneath the 2.5th percentile, it would be widely considered that the evidence was strong enough to indicate that the observations were not drawn from the population of model results. In other words, statistician would describe that situation that the models disagree with the observations with “very high confidence.” Some researchers use a more lax standard and would consider that falling below the 5th percentile would be enough to consider the observations not to be in agreement with the models. We could consider that case to be described as “high confidence” that the models and observations disagree with one another....It is clearly not a good situation for climate models when even a sustained temperature rise equal to the fastest yet observed (Scenario 3) still leads to complete model failure within two decades.
    http://bit.ly/1qc9ZfH

    If the IPCC can't even rely of computer models, just what do they have to keep promoting this garbage? Clearly there are serious flaws, and yet the alarmists rhetoric only increases. That is clear evidence that this is a fraud. "Me thinks thou protests too much" is a typical fraud's tactic to distract from the fact that you are getting conned.
    Aug 15 08:53 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Investors' Guide To El Nino, Climate Change And Summer Weather Forecast [View article]
    "This spring, new research out of Canada's McGill University that reviewed historical temperature records and geological data (ice cores, tree rings and lake sediments) concluded with 99% certainty that our current climate change predicament cannot be ascribed to natural cycles."

    Really? I encourage you to do that research yourself. That is a complete joke, just go look at the ice core data and do basic hypothesis testing on that theory. BTW, nearly 100% of all IPCC models using that kind of conclusion have been proven invalid. They can make all they claims they want, the data proves otherwise.

    Here is just the most recent example of this Global Warming Climate Change nonsense. What I love about this "science" is that it is so obvious that they started with a conclusion and then worked backward, never considering how the existing scientific laws, theories and principles work into the conclusion. The current scientific fear-mongering is ocean acidification. I've been saying for years that due to Henry's law, and the fact that pH is a logarithmic measurement, there was no way for the slight amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to 1) impact the Ocean pH and 2) warming oceans RELEASE CO2, they don't absorb it. Warmer oceans become alkaline, not acidic. Simply calculating out the volume of the oceans and the amount of CO2 needed to alter its pH of 8 will demonstrate what a joke this claim is. Also, the oceans are getting warmer DUE TO THE SUN's heat. Warmer oceans release CO2. It should be no surprise that when the oceans get warmer, atmospheric CO2. That is what every real science book in the world details. Here is a simple review of those facts:
    Ocean Acidification Claims are Misleading – and deliberately so
    http://bit.ly/1Advlk2

    The other nonsensical claim is that CO2 dives temperature. CO2 simply doesn't trap that much heat, and historical records show CO2 has been as high as 7,000 PPM and had no impact on temperature. We fell into an ice age when CO2 was 4,000 PPM, 10x the level we are at today.

    Here is the best statistical analysis on this topic I've seen. It clearly states that CO2 LAGS temperature, it doesn't lead it. There is no theory that details how CO2 would lead temperatures out of an ice age, and data show high CO2 level don't prevent ice ages from occurring. That is what the ice core and geological data tells us.
    This video is long, but it does analysis that pretty much proves AGW is a totally mi-specified model, meaning they reversed their Xs and Ys, meaning their model is lung cancer causes cancer. BTW, I believe this guy lost his job for doing this research.
    http://bit.ly/1Advlk3

    Salby was sacked from Macquarie U.
    http://bit.ly/1AdvlAh

    This is why I Salby had to be fired, he actually applied real scientific analysis to this nonsense.
    Curry: 'I just finished listening to Murry Salby's podcast on Climate Change and Carbon. Wow'
    http://bit.ly/1AdvnbE

    The last nail in the coffin of this AGW non-sense is the CO2 traps enough heat to cause climate change and global warming. All one need to do is compare the diurnal temperature variation of a rain forest and a desert to see the flaw in that theory, but thankfully we don't need to. Al Gore and Bill Nye gave us the evidence we need.

    Here is an article on Al Gore and Bill Nye's demonstration of extreme scientific ignorance.
    http://bit.ly/1AdvlAl

    The video evidence of just how big a lie Climate Science is:
    http://bit.ly/1AdvnrS

    Real scientific analysis of this experiment:
    http://bit.ly/1AdvlAn

    Bottom line, if real scientists populated out climate science departments we would be preparing for the next ice age, not global warming and climate change. All one needs to do is simply study the data and foundation of this AGW/ACC theory to see just what a complete joke it is.

    BTW, that "joke" has cost us over $200 billion dollars, and for what?
    http://bit.ly/1AdvlAq
    Aug 13 08:47 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Investors' Guide To El Nino, Climate Change And Summer Weather Forecast [View article]
    Here is the graphic details of the "success" of this "war on coal jobs." The trend is atmospheric CO2 is literally unchanged. Trillions of dollars spent or lost and the benefits are 100% immeasurable.
    http://co2now.org

    1) CO2 does not lead Temperature, it lags it. That alone makes this theory garbage. It is X=mY+b, not Y=mX+b. These climate "scientists" can't even get the basic formula right. Their model is analogous to lung cancer causes smoking.

    2) The trend of CO2 is virtually unchanged pre and post-Al Gore's efforts. In other words we have gotten literally noting for our expenditures...and that is exactly what the IPCC models predict. Absolutely nothing of material consequence.

    3) Nearly 100%, and I predict that 100% of the IPCC models will eventually be proven invalid at the 95% confidence level.

    4) There is nothing in the green house gas effect that affords CO2 the power to affect climate change through anything other than trapping heat. We have been in a temperature pause for 18 years, so CO2 can't be the cause.

    5) CO2 and IR absorption is a logarithmic relationship, small changes are irrelevant. Changes by a factor of 10x mean something.

    6) Can you identify any air quality differences between today and 20 years ago? Nope, yet CO2 is much higher, and hasn't slowed since Al Gore made this an issue.

    7) Ice core data demonstrates that current temp and climate variation is well within norm.

    8) Recent solar output reconstructions imply the recent warming was due to the sun...image that.
    http://bit.ly/1nFAiZY

    9) Taxing and regulating won't change the climate. If climate change was really a threat, wouldn't the progressives be proposing ideas that actually divert the disaster? Instead, Al Gore buys beach front property. Go figure.
    Aug 10 11:46 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Investors' Guide To El Nino, Climate Change And Summer Weather Forecast [View article]
    Anyone that believes this AGW nonsense needs to watch this video. It highlights the points that I've been making. The very foundation, the very principles on which this theory is based simply can not be replicated in the lab. I find it very very very telling that Al Gore makes a video detailing a "scientific" experiment that is flawed on an epic scale. Note how the real scientist in the video details all the steps, equipment and possible flaws. Bottom line, I would forward this video to every science teacher that you know. The more people know about this "science" that less they will accept the conclusion of the climate "scientists." BTW, you will never and I repeat NEVER see Canadian or any other climate alarminst producing videos like this one, they produce deceptive ones like Al Gore.

    http://bit.ly/1396GyA
    Aug 3 10:51 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Investors' Guide To El Nino, Climate Change And Summer Weather Forecast [View article]
    This is pretty funny. I'm always pointing out that you will never find a study showing that if you take flasks of air with varying amounts of CO2 around 400 PPMs, shine a light tuned to 10 micron IR light on the flasks and measure the temperatures. The reason you will never read that study is because it will produce no measureable difference in the temperature, and certainly not the 1 degree C claimed by the climate scientists. The same can be said about the acidification of the oceans. The climate "scientists" just seem to fail to perform the most basis of empirical analysis to support their theory.

    Well, Al Gore must have caught on to that criticism, and actually made a video of an experiment similar to what I outlined above. He of course fills the jar with 100% CO2, so it is more applicable to the atmosphere on Venus than Earth, but who every thought Al Gore was about the truth anyways? Anyway, even with that clearly flawed experiment used more to deceive than to understand, it failed. They had to photoshop the thermometer to make the case. Just ask yourself that if you have to photoshop the results of your experiment, is it a valid experiment?

    This is truly a new low for the field of climate "science."

    Exposing this lie to the viewers didn’t set well with some people, include the supposed “fairness” watchdogs over at Media Matters, who called the analysis a “waste of time”. Of course it’s only a “waste of time” when you prove their man Gore was faking the whole thing, otherwise they wouldn’t care. Personally I consider it a badge of honor for them to take notice because they usually reserve such vitriol for high profile news they don’t like, so apparently I have “arrived”.

    http://bit.ly/1396GyA

    By the way, watch the entire video to see just how biased the reporting of this nonsense is, and pay attention to just who they select to highlight in the video and the clips they choose. This is pure soviet style propaganda 101.
    Aug 3 10:28 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Investors' Guide To El Nino, Climate Change And Summer Weather Forecast [View article]
    "Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument,"

    How many times do I need to repeat myself, THE DATA DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT MAN IS CAUSING CLIMATE CHANGE. Simply produce the data set that proves your point. You can't. That is a fact. The only thing you can produce is the conclusions of "peer" reviewed scientists that have obviously failed elementary school statistics and data analysis. Once again, simply show me a temperature data set and ice core data that supports the claim that man is causing the change. That is about as simple a request as they come and you can't do it. I'm not asking about an article, a peer reviewed study, simply show me a data set that we can down loan and analyze. Unless you choose the "Hockeystick" and even that have been proven garbage over the past 20 years, you can't do it. The problem you face is that data sets existed before all this nonsense started, and those data sets can't be edited, and they prove all this climate change nonsense is pure scientific garbage. Prove me wrong, show me a data set that makes your case.


    Once again, if the "PEER review" process is corrupt, which the climategate e-mails prove beyond any reasonable doubt, it is simply a rubber stamp as long as it agrees with the chosen solution. Once again, you have the scientific process working against you. There is a data set that has to prove their case, and they don't have it. What you should be asking yourself is how can you have a 1)Consensus 2) Conclusion not supported by the data and 3) IPCC models created to prove the case that have failed on an epic scale. How is that possible in any real "science." This climate "science" violates every scientific principle on the books. Once again, there are data sets, those data sets demonstrate that climate/temperature has not behaved in a manner any different over the past 50 and 150 years than it has over the past 12k years. That is the problem you face. You choose to "believe" in a science that doesn't rely on the scientific method, and instead relies on a public opinion campaign and politics. Fortunately, most Americans aren't gullible to believe this nonsense so the soviet style propaganda machine pushing this nonsense only convinces those who want to be convinced.
    Aug 3 09:34 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Investors' Guide To El Nino, Climate Change And Summer Weather Forecast [View article]
    Consequence Bias? Are you kidding me? Just help me and everyone else understand how raising taxes and increasing regulations will slow the growth of CO2 and global warming? That is the whole problem with this nonsensical "science." If climate change/global warming/coming ice age, were truely real threats I would have expected the progressives to propose solutions that actually address the issue and save the world. They don't, they use it as an opportunity to redistribute wealth, and that is it. Even the IPCC modes have nearly immeasurable "improvements" after spending trillions of dollars. Even the IPCC models show that taxing and regulation won't change a darn thing. Maybe you don't mind wasting other people's money, but I would rather have those dollars spent on something that actually might make a difference, like building roads and bridges, schools, better healthcare, better public services, paying down the debt, lower and simpler taxes, etc etc etc. In a world of limited resources and ballooning debt, this climate change folly is something we simply can't afford. I refer you to the tobacco settlement. Progressives didn't ban or outlaw tobacco, they simply let people keep smoking and taxed it. It became a cash cow for progressive policies. Here is Ohio they sold the tobacco settlement and built sidewalks with it. How did that solve the smoking problem? It didn't. If climate change is really going to end the world, progressives have no solution to prevent it other than making their supporters rich in the process.
    Aug 3 09:21 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Investors' Guide To El Nino, Climate Change And Summer Weather Forecast [View article]
    'The models are programmed to run far hotter than they should. They have been trained to yield a result profitable to those who operate them.'

    'If the IPCC and the much-tampered temperature records are right, and if there has been no significant downward pressure on global temperatures from natural forcings, we have been causing global warming at an unremarkable central rate of less than two-thirds of a Celsius degree per century.'

    Canadian, isn't it funny how these people you discredit use statistical analysis and the existing data to make their cases...you know...like real scientists. Brenie Maydoff couldn't even make these numbers look good...neither could the IPCC.

    Temperature analysis of 5 datasets shows the ‘Great Pause’ has endured for 13 years, 4 months
    http://bit.ly/XtqJIc
    Aug 2 02:08 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Investors' Guide To El Nino, Climate Change And Summer Weather Forecast [View article]
    Canadian, I don't know what your point is? Simply look at the data. You keep focusing on the sources. I don't give a rats about the sources, there is data to test. The IPCC models don't even come close to modeling their doom and gloom claims. The data doesn't even work if plugged into a biased computer model. How much more evidence do you need than people can't even manipulate the data enough to get they results they want? The facts are, in any real science the IPCC models would be rejecting this science, not being used as sources of support. Facts are you don't even have computer models to support you case, and the data certainly doesn't. In other works you have absolutely nothing to support your case other than your hopes and dreams of higher taxes and greater regulations. That is it.

    Despite the passage of 20 Centuries the modern day rune casters are no more accurate than their distant ancestors were, the expensive and religiously revered “Computer Models” have yet to predict any event that has actually happened, yet their erroneous results still trump observed empirical evidence.

    The Climate Change catastrophe is not a new phenomenon, it first appeared as we know it today in the closing years of the 19th Century:
    http://bit.ly/Xtqhdd
    Aug 2 02:05 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Investors' Guide To El Nino, Climate Change And Summer Weather Forecast [View article]
    More research published supporting my claims. Funny how all the newly issued research seems to support my "non climate scientist" analysis. Image that, what is past is prologue.

    And so it is that in the case of the most recent phase of Holocene millennial-scale climate variability - i.e., the Little Ice Age-to-Current Warm Period warming - we must also consider the likelihood that it, too, may have been driven by the very same force or forces that were responsible for all of the many other episodes of millennial-scale climate change of the Holocene, which were clearly not driven by changes in the air's CO2 content, as may be readily understood in light of the CO2 vs. time plot of the data presented below, where it can be seen that although there are large gaps between some of the data points in the record, it appears that the atmosphere's CO2 concentration varied but little until the rapid rise of the last century, so as to make it impossible for CO2 fluctuations to have had anything at all to do with prior warming or cooling events of the Holocene, which implies that something other than the historical rise in the air's CO2 content has likely been responsible for the most recent and concurrent warming of the globe, since such has had to have been the case in similar century-scale warmings of the past.
    http://bit.ly/1AAOduq
    Jul 30 09:50 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Investors' Guide To El Nino, Climate Change And Summer Weather Forecast [View article]
    You gotta love this, new research pretty much proves what I've commented above. The nice thing is that I posted the comments before this article was published.

    However, the new paper casts doubt on the IPCC's assertion:

    Research shows that the current warming does not exceed the natural fluctuations of climate. The climate models of IPCC seem to underestimate the impact of natural factors on the climate change, while overstate that of human activities. Solar activity is an important ingredient of natural driving forces of climate. Therefore, it is valuable to investigate the influence of solar variability on the Earth's climate change on long time scales.

    Indeed, the study says that the "modern maximum" – a peak in solar activity that lasted much of the last century – corresponds very well with an increase in global temperatures.
    http://bit.ly/1s0Argp
    Jul 29 09:52 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Investors' Guide To El Nino, Climate Change And Summer Weather Forecast [View article]
    Thanks, I'm working on it. I'm trying to develop a class room lecture on the scientific method and apply it to global warming. The problem I see is that we are teaching students the conclusions reached by others instead of teaching them to reach their own conclusions. If people simply take the time to study the data there is only one real conclusion, that being the data simply doesn't even come close to supporting the conclusions. Once again, thanks for the comment.
    Jul 26 09:18 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
2,094 Comments
1,629 Likes