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.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (75727)	12/1/2009 1:44:57 PM
From: JakeStraw	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224750

Kenneth, I recommend you start a weather thread since you seem to be so focused on it. You really should be mature and considerate enough to realize this is a political thread. In other words, weather has nothing to do with politics.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (75727)	12/1/2009 1:52:34 PM
From: longnshort	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224750

New Zealand's Climategate Posted: November 26, 2009, 3:14 PM by Lawrence Solomon Lawrence Solomon, climate change, climate change, New Zealand, Climatic Research Unit, CRU global warming An agency of the New Zealand government has been cooking the books to create a warming trend where none exists, according to a joint research project by global warming skeptics at the Climate Conversation Group and the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. The chief cook? Dr. Jim Salinger, considered one of the country's top scientists, who began the graph in the 1980s when he was at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK. CRU, of course, has become ground zero of Climategate at Dr. Salinger has maintained close relations with CRU since, as seen in the Climategate emails. What do the uncooked books show? Rather than warming over the last hundred years, New Zealand's temperature has been steady. For the full story, visit the site of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, here. For the rebuttal by New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, visit here. LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com Read more: network.nationalpost.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (75727)	12/1/2009 3:12:39 PM
From: tonto	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224750

As you can see, it is way off the record high in 1998. It was 60 then, today is nice but we were not talking about December... Hopefully it will be closer tomorrow of the higher temps from 1998...

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (75727)	12/2/2009 1:13:38 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 224750

Seeing No Evil On Climate-Gate Posted 06:49 PM ET Media: The shameless denial with which major newspapers and networks have treated "Climategate" layers even more scandal on top of the original one: Mainstream media now co-conspirators with scientific hacks and big government. The evolution of America's dominant media from guardians of our freedoms to enablers of government growth has been a decades-long story, their biases copiously chronicled. But their response to the scientific scandal of the century, since it broke a week and a half ago, bids to become known as history's great unmasking of these supposedly independent journalists. The scandal burst into the open when a hacker — we'll call that mysterious figure a whistle-blower if they won't — released thousands of e-mails exchanged by climate scientists who beaver away at Britain's University of East Anglia. The e-mails clearly reveal that the university's Climatic Research Unit, a central source of data for global warming alarmists, corrupted the science by hiding evidence of the last decade's decline in global temperatures. Even more: They conveniently lost the original data on which their house-of-cards computer modeling built the narrative of long-term global warming. On that dubious narrative was built the political momentum for history's greatest transfer of wealth from developed to undeveloped nations. Even more: They squared and cubed their own corruption, these beneficiaries of tax-supported research money, by closing off legitimate and necessary skepticism, even fantasizing about committing violence against leading skeptics. Their purposes were political: to shape data to suit the agenda of international regulators, many of whom will meet next week in Copenhagen to propose draconian emission controls. That, by any old-school journalist's reckoning, would constitute a scandal of global proportions, and you'd expect the terriers of the press to bare their teeth. Certainly they did so two years ago, when, as the Media Research Center's Rich Noyes reminds us, the networks wouldn't let go of allegations that the Bush administration suppressed global warming science. So what about their treatment of Climategate? The major networks, as Noyes observes, have scarcely touched it. Last Wednesday, the three major nets produced Copenhagen curtain raisers. No scandal mention. CNN glanced off it in one story. On Sunday, the ABC panel of George Stephanopoulos discussed it briefly. Fox News Channel, behaving as a journalistic outfit should, has covered the story extensively. It's been all over the Internet and British newspapers. As for U.S. print media, well, the New York Times' Andrew Revkin reported the story Nov. 21, planting this dismissal five paragraphs down: "The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument." With that sentence, he ceased being a reporter — not surprising, given his blog's regular trumpeting of warmist alarmism. The Washington Post on Nov. 25 pre-emptively editorialized about the revelations: "None of it seriously undercuts the scientific consensus on climate change." In fact it does, in spades, as anyone with an elementary reverence for scientific method will recognize. The same paper's Pulitzer-winning columnist Eugene Robinson, never mind a Post-ABC News Poll showing dramatic erosion of public support for climate legislation, two days later gave the game away: "Most Americans are convinced that climate change is real — a necessary prerequisite for the kinds of huge economic and behavioral adjustments we would have to make." So the dominant media no longer check the growth of government, especially when government is poised to impinge on our freedoms. Rather, they feed public perceptions in a propagandistic loop. Those fearless watchdogs of the press? Gone.