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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (76101)	12/19/2009 6:01:18 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

To Denmark, From Russia, With Lies IBD Editorials Posted 12/18/2009 07:53 PM ET Global Warming: Russian analysts accuse Britain's Meteorological Office of cherry-picking Russian temperature data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures. Is Copenhagen rooted in a single tree in Siberia? Michael Mann, a Penn State meteorologist, wrote in Friday's Washington Post that "stolen" e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit still don't alter the evidence for climate change. Mann, a creator of the discredited hockey-stick graph used in reports from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to show man-made warming, attacks climate skeptics, including former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, saying they "confuse the public." Chutzpah has been redefined. As Ronald Reagan used to say, facts are stubborn things. The fact is that imminent man-made climate disaster has been shown to be a massive fraud driven by manipulated data and deliberate suppression of facts to the contrary. The latest Climate-gate shoe to drop is the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) accusation that the Hadley Center of Britain's Meteorological Office deliberately relied on a carefully selected 25% of Russia's weather stations that fit its theory of global warming. By ignoring those that don't, the Russians say, the CRU overestimated warming in the country by more than half a degree Celsius. Russia accounts for 12.5% of the earth's land mass and has weather stations throughout, so ignoring vast swaths of it can greatly skew any analysis. The IEA says CRU ignored data covering 40% of Russia, preferring data from urban centers and data that showed a warming trend. On the final page of the IEA report is a chart that shows the CRU's selective use of Russian data produced 0.64C more warming than using all the data would have done. Steve McIntyre at ClimateAudit reports that the CRU has long been suspected of misusing Russian data. He notes a March 2004 e-mail from CRU director Phil Jones to Mann that says: "Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears (in these journals) I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL." (JGR and GRL are scientific journals). Siberia has played a pivotal role in this outright fraud. In 1995, a paper by the CRU's Keith Briffa asserted the medieval warm period was actually really cold, and recent warming is unusually warm. It relied on tree ring data from trees on Siberia's Yamal Peninsula. Here too data were carefully selected. Those from just 12 trees from 252 cores in the Yamal data set were used. A larger set of 34 tree cores from the vicinity shows no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the Middle Ages. They weren't used. The hockey-stick graph was produced in 1999 by Mann using these manipulated tree ring data. The graph supposedly proved air temperatures had been stable for 900 years, then soared off the charts in the 20th century. Mann et al. had to make the Medieval Warm Period (A.D. 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1600 to 1850) statistically disappear. McIntyre, who with fellow Canadian researcher Ross McKitrick exposed the hockey-stick fraud, says the evidence from only one Siberian tree, known as YAD061, seemed to show a hockey-stick pattern. If they look hard enough, the CRU can probably find a tree that shows evidence of elves making cookies. This tree spawned the hockey stick that found its way into the reports of the U.N.'s climate change panel. It led to Kyoto and Copenhagen, which is why McIntyre calls it "the most influential tree in the world." As the CRU e-mails and other evidence reveal, Mann and his unindicted co-conspirators are barking up the wrong one. investors.com

To: Sully- who wrote (76101)	12/19/2009 6:08:04 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Obama Checked By: The Editors National Review Online President Obama could have given the global environmentalist movement the crippling deal it wants -- a binding commitment to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and a financial commitment to help developing countries do the same. And to be sure, he put these things on the table. But he conditioned them upon receiving binding and verifiable promises to cut emissions from the developing world, which were not forthcoming. Given the circumstances, he had little choice but to do the responsible thing and punt. Let’s not give him too much credit here. In the absence of those commitments, there wasn’t much he could credibly offer. In 1997, the Senate passed a resolution 95-0 stating that it would not ratify any treaty that forced the U.S. to cut emissions while allowing rapidly growing poor countries, such as China and India, limitless freedom to increase theirs. Times have changed, but the Senate is still reluctant to hamstring the American economy for no good reason, as evidenced by the Democrats’ inability to move a cap-and-trade bill this year. One of the main arguments in favor of cap-and-trade is that it would purportedly show the developing world that the U.S. is serious about cutting emissions, thus inducing them to follow our lead. But the developing world’s reluctance to follow us down such a path has little to do with our supposed hypocrisy and everything to do with the fact that large swaths of that world remain desperately poor. Around 8 million people in China still lack electricity. In India, that number is a staggering 404 million. The affordable energy that fossil fuels supply is an important engine for lifting people out of poverty. Alternatives simply can’t provide the required amount of energy, much less provide it at the same cost. Groups like Greenpeace say they have an answer, which is that we should pay the bill. Obama is open to that idea -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton offered to help raise $100 billion a year to defray the cost of “climate-change mitigation” in the developing world -- but again, he seemed to realize that this kind of financial commitment would have been impossible to sell to Congress without a robust mechanism in place for making sure that foreign leaders were using the money to meet emissions targets and not stashing it away in Swiss bank accounts. The leaders of these countries took offense to the very suggestion that they might cook the books to evade their commitments and stormed out of various meetings at the conference several times. In the end, Obama could not give what he did not have, and that is the willingness of Congress to send a huge amount of money abroad, and inflict a huge amount of economic pain at home, in exchange for empty promises from other countries to reduce their emissions. Carl Pope of the Sierra Club said with disappointment, “President Obama and the rest of the world paid a steep price here in Copenhagen because of obstructionism in the United States Senate.” Let us hope that obstructionism continues. article.nationalreview.com