Global Warming is actually misnamed — it should be called Global Weather Volatility. Because of gulfstreams, ocean currents, etc., any overall increase in
temperatures thermodynamically interacts with these other weather climatological elements
and leads not only to a general warming, but to colder winters, stronger
Hey, its not that complicated — its just physics. Increasing energy in a closed system introduces a range of variable outputs that can potentially be several standard deviations away from historical norms (duh).
I suggest that derivatives for Global Weather Volatility should trade on the CBOE under the ticker symbol "VXG."
Coincidentally, like Oil, and like Natural Gas, if Global Temperature were a stock, its chart would be a technical breakout, and a strong buy:
"Two global-warming skeptics who questioned an
influential climate study and prompted a congressional inquiry are now
facing critics of their own, as a pair of new research papers take
issue with their results.
The new findings are the latest round in a politically charged
dispute over the "hockey stick," a widely publicized graphic showing
that temperatures during the late 20th century were likely higher than
at any time in the past 1,000 years . . ."
Some scientists believe the dispute has more political weight than scientific significance. That’s because, they say, other studies of past temperatures also indicate they are higher now, on average, than at any time in past 1,000 years, and perhaps far longer. "A number of studies all come to the same conclusion," Dr. Mann said.
I find the debate over whether there is such as thimg as Global Warming to be another absurd use of UnScience. If I could short UnScience, I would . . .
So with this post, we also add the category of UnScience to our repetoire . . .
Global-Warming Skeptics Under Fire
Two New Papers Question Results Used to Challenge Influential Climate Study
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, October 26, 2005; Page B3
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.