Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LoneClone who wrote (125998)	11/27/2009 9:40:33 AM
From: kollmhn	6 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206085

LC- Global warming is an economic issue (yes, with politics attached)that is directly linked to cap and trade which couldn't be more relevant to this board. That said here is another gratifying post on the topic: "Cap and trade is dead............... From investor's hub: of 86739 [Send a link via email] [Share on Facebook] [Tweet this post] [OT] “Cap and Trade Is Dead”—Sen. Inhofe [Executives of multinational energy companies have been saying for some time that ‘Cap and Trade’ is dead for 2009-2010 (e.g. #msg-40023355), but Sen. Inhofe goes a step further and asserts that ‘Cap and Trade’ is dead, period. See #msg-40453185 for a related piece.] online.wsj.com ›NOVEMBER 27, 2009 By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL So declares Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, taking a few minutes away from a Thanksgiving retreat with his family. "Ninety-five percent of the nails were in the coffin prior to this week. Now they are all in." If any politician might be qualified to offer last rites, it would be Mr. Inhofe. The top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee has spent the past decade in the thick of Washington's climate fight. He's seen the back of three cap-and-trade bills, rode herd on an overweening Environmental Protection Agency, and steadfastly insisted that global researchers were "cooking" the science behind man-made global warming. This week he's looking prescient. The more than 3,000 emails and documents from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have found their way to the Internet have blown the lid off the "science" of manmade global warming. CRU is a nerve center for many of those researchers who have authored the United Nations' global warming reports and fueled the political movement to regulate carbon. Their correspondence show a claque of scientists massaging data to make it fit their theories, squelching scientists who disagreed, punishing academic journals that didn't toe the apocalyptic line, and hiding their work from public view. "It's no use pretending that this isn't a major blow," glumly wrote George Monbiot, a U.K. writer who has been among the fiercest warming alarmists. The documents "could scarcely be more damaging." And that's from a believer. This scandal has real implications. Mr. Inhofe notes that international and U.S. efforts to regulate carbon were already on the ropes. The growing fear of Democrats and environmentalists is that the CRU uproar will prove a tipping point, and mark a permanent end to those ambitions. Internationally, world leaders finally acknowledged that the recession has sapped them of their political power to impose devastating new carbon-restrictions. China and India are clear they won't join the West in an economic suicide pact. Next month's summit in Copenhagen is a bust. Instead of producing legally binding agreements, it will be dogged by queries about the legitimacy of the scientists who wrote the reports that form its basis. The next opportunity to get international agreement is in Mexico City, 2010—a U.S. election year. Democrats were already publicly acknowledging there will be no domestic climate legislation in 2009 and privately acknowledging their great unease at passing a huge energy tax on Americans headed for a midterm vote. Add to that the CRU scandal, which pivots the focus to potential fraud. Republicans are launching investigations, and the pressure is building on Democrats to hold hearings, since climate scientists were funded with U.S. taxpayer dollars. Mr. Inhofe's office this week sent letters to federal agencies and outside scientists warning them not to delete their own CRU-related emails and documents, which may also be subject to Freedom of Information requests. Polls show a public already losing belief in the theory of man-made global warming, and skeptics are now on the offense. The Competitive Enterprise Institute's Myron Ebell argues this scandal gives added cover to Blue Dogs and other Democrats who were already reluctant to buck the public's will and vote for climate legislation. And with Republicans set to pick up seats, Mr. Ebell adds, "By 2011 there will hopefully be even fewer members who support this. We may be close to having it permanently stymied." Continued U.S. failure to act makes an international agreement to replace Kyoto (which expires in 2012) a harder sell. There's still the EPA, which is preparing an "endangerment finding" that would allow it to regulate carbon on the grounds it is a danger to public health. It is here the emails might have the most direct effect. The agency has said repeatedly that it based its finding on the U.N. science—which is now at issue. The scandal puts new pressure on the EPA to accede to growing demands to make public the scientific basis of its actions. Mr. Inhofe goes so far as to suggest that the agency might not now issue the finding. "The president knows how punitive this will be; he's never wanted to do it through [the EPA] because that's all on him." The EPA was already out on a legal limb with its finding, and Mr. Inhofe argues that if it does go ahead, the CRU disclosure guarantees court limbo. "The way the far left used to stop us is to file lawsuits and stall and stall. We'll do the same thing." Still, if this Democratic Washington has demonstrated anything, it's that ideology often trumps common sense. Egged on by the left, dug in to their position, Democrats might plow ahead. They'd be better off acknowledging that the only "consensus" right now is that the world needs to start over on climate "science."‹"

To: LoneClone who wrote (125998)	11/28/2009 11:31:59 AM
From: Umunhum	42 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 206085

Will you guys keep this global warming propaganda, on either side, off this forum I invest in oil companies because I believe that the ramifications of peak oil are not correctly priced into the market. I invest in oil sand companies because I believe both Jeff Rubin and Don Coxe are correct in saying that well over half of the world's oil that you can invest in lies in the Canadian Oil Sands and that we should focus on long life reserves in politically secure areas of the world. Right now I have over 50% of my wealth invested in various oil sand companies. I constantly ask myself, what could go wrong with my oil sand investments? And the biggest threats to my investments are taxes from carbon legislation and the fact that the global warming proponents want to shut down the oil sands completely. And so I couldn't agree more with Kollmhn statement that "Global warming is an economic issue (yes, with politics attached) that is directly linked to cap and trade which couldn't be more relevant to this board." And if you truly follow this issue, there really isn't a debate going on. On one side you have the skeptics asking for the data to see if they can verify the authors conclusions and on the other side you have people not wanting to give out the data. Anybody that has taken a biology class learned about The Scientific Method: en.wikipedia.org Quote - "the scientific method Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established." This is not happening with the Global Warming "science". These released emails confirm everything that the skeptics have been saying for years. That basically the cabal of Global Warming have been falsifying data, not allowing other scientist privy to the data to recreate the models to see if any errors have been made, preventing any opposing view from being published, and then claiming that the science is settled because everyone agrees with them. A quote from Steve McIntyre: If climate scientists want to fast track from articles in journals to policy with substantive implications, then they should expect and welcome due diligence wherever it arises. climateaudit.org For years I have been subjected to the endless media hype of this fraud. There is even one poster on this board that has the audacity to claim that the average person is too stupid to understand the "science" behind global warming. And yet this same genius can't seem to wrap his arms around the concept of peak oil. I'm sorry to say that I am going to take great pleasure in watching this ship sink! Paul Driessen explains it far better than I ever could: Message 26133966 These supposed scientists built their careers and reputations on conjuring datasets, computer models, scenarios and reports – all claiming that modern civilization’s use of hydrocarbons is about to destroy the planet, and all financed by well over $100 billion in US, UK, EU and other taxpayer money. Realist climate experts have long smelled a rat. The alarmists’ data didn’t match other data. Their models never worked. Their claims of “consensus” and “unprecedented” warming had no basis in fact. Too many grant and publication decisions were decided by which side of the issue someone was on. Now, finally, the rat has been flushed from its sewer – by a hacker, whistle-blower or someone who carelessly left “secret” files where a website visitor could find them … and reveal them to the world. Now, finally, even the “mainstream” media can no longer ignore or whitewash the scandal. The stakes are incredibly high. This bogus, biased “science” is being used to justify expensive, intrusive, repressive, abusive treaties, laws and regulations. The new rules would undermine economies, destroy jobs, close down companies and entire industries, impoverish families and communities, roll back personal freedoms and civil rights – and enrich the lucky few whose lobbyists and connections enable them to corner markets for renewable energy technologies, carbon offsets and emissions trading. For the most destitute people on the planet, the repercussions from this fraud are even higher. These people – 750 million in Africa alone – do not have electricity, cars, modern homes, jobs or hope for a better future. They die by the millions from malnutrition and lung, intestinal and insect-borne diseases that would be dramatically reduced with access to dependable, affordable energy. But the alarmists’ bogus, biased “science” is being used to justify building a Climate Wall between these desperate people and the modern, energy-rich world. To justify perpetuating misery, disease and death. Jones, Mann, Briffa, Trenberth, Wigley, IPCC chief Rajenda Pachauri, White House science advisor John Holdren, CRU scientist Tim Osborn, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory researcher Ben Santer and others implicated in this growing scandal should do the honorable thing – and resign their posts. If they refuse, they should be put on paid administrative leave, until every aspect of this collusion and junk science scandal can be thoroughly investigated. Dismissal or other appropriate action should follow. They should not be allowed to represent their governments or organizations in Copenhagen. Institutions that received climate alarm grants should be disciplined and removed from future grant conduits, if they knew about these actions – or would have known, had they exercised due diligence. The entire IPCC and peer review process needs to be repaired. The alarmists and self-appointed censors who have corrupted the system must be replaced with scientists who will ensure honest inquiry and a full airing of all data, hypotheses and perspectives on climate science, economics and policy. Most importantly, the United States, Britain and all other responsible nations should slam the brakes on every proposed “climate crisis” treaty, agreement, bill, regulatory proposal and endangered species action – until we get to the bottom of this scandal, and determine which data and claims are honest and accurate, which are bogus and unfounded. President Obama should cancel his trip to Copenhagen, and his plans to lobby for a new climate treaty and commit the US to slash its carbon dioxide emissions to a job-killing 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. It is time to clean out the climate cesspool, and bring integrity, transparency and accountability back to science, law and public policy.