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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (40292)	5/30/2013 1:39:42 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	1 Recommendation Respond to of 86356

Rat the fact you think there is proof of something is in fact proof positive there is no proof. Or proof opposite whatever you believe to be the reality.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (40292)	5/30/2013 2:02:56 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

'Trougher' Yeo recants on global warming By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: May 29th, 2013 1339 Comments Comment on this article Yeo: "Even though I'm wrong I'm totally right". So even Tim "Trougher" Yeo admits he was wrong about climate change. (Well done young Matthew Holehouse for screwing this admission out of him.) Here's what he said in 2009: "The dying gasps of the deniers will be put to bed. In five years time, no one will argue about a man-made contribution to climate change.” And here, less than five years on, is what he is saying now: “Although I think the evidence that the climate is changing is now overwhelming, the causes are not absolutely clear. There could be natural causes, natural phases that are taking place.” We're going to see a lot of this in the coming weeks and months: "the even though I've been proved completely wrong, I was right all along really" non-apologetic retraction from all those former full-time climate alarmists – eg the Met Office; Oxford's Professor Myles Allen; even certain of my Telegraph blogging colleagues – who are now trying to escape from the collapsing edifice of the great AGW scam while trying to salvage as much professional dignity as they can muster. Notice that weasel phrase "I think the evidence that the climate is changing is now overwhelming…" It's the sort of technique you might learn in an advanced NLP class as a way of pulling wool over the eyes of the unwary. What the phrase implies is that there has been a long-running debate as to whether "climate is changing", that Yeo has always been on the right side of it and that now he has been vindicated. Truly this a slimy trick worthy of the man they sometimes call "Trougher" and sometimes "Ebola". As we all know here, there has never been a debate about whether the "climate is changing". Not even Mr Thick the Thickest person on the planet; not even Mr Fossil Fuel, the most lavishly Big-Oil-funded denialist denialista; not a single person anywhere on earth ever in our lifetime has ever suggested that climate doesn't change. Indeed, that has been the whole point that those of us on the right (ie my) side of the argument have been making all along. Climate change is a normal, natural and perpetual process which occurs, and has always occurred, with sublime indifference to man's puny input. Still, it's good to see Yeo taking at least the first tentative step on the path to redemption. Admitting you were totally wrong about something, that you've been made to look an utterly despicable, greedy fool, that even the Conservatives in your constituency hate you, that no one trusts you as far as they can spit, that you've done immeasurable damage to your country's landscape and economy with the abysmally counterproductive environmental policies you not only helped promote but from which you may have benefited financially: these are things no man would ever wish to admit to himself. But it's OK Tim. I can help. In the last two years, for example, you have earned getting on for £250,000 on top of your MP's salary, from your various green interests. Imagine how much happier you'd be in your skin if you could divest yourself of that money which you have now realised is tainted money. Imagine if you'd been given a blood diamond by Charles Taylor; imagine if you'd produced a DVD called "Now Then, Now Then: the Very Best of Jimmy Savile": you couldn't, in all conscience, keep the profits from that, could you? Well, Trougher, me old mucker, I'm afraid the same rules apply with your green business interests. Here's the thing: that industry you've profited from simply WOULD NOT EXIST had it not been for that toxic combination of junk science and hysterical fearmongering to which you have made such a vocal contribution. I know quarter of a million quid is small beer next to the profits being raked in by your mates in the renewables industry. But for some people out there it would make a real difference, especially the victims of the wind industry which the Committee for Climate Change (Prop: Tim Yeo) has done so much to encourage. £50 buys someone a decent night's sleep in a B & B away from the insomnia-inducing low frequency noise of a wind farm £500 buys a sporting rifle which – not that I'm recommending such illegal behaviour, heaven forfend! – might be used to blast away at the nacelle of the nearest wind turbine £30,000 pays for a QC to represent a local community at the wind farm planning appeal to which, of course, by rights they should never have had to be subjected. After all, it's not as though the planning committee of their district council didn't already turn down this application to plonk an industrial turbine in the middle of their cherished beauty spot on two occasions, once by 11 to 1 and second time by 11 to 0. But hey, that's the situation we've got at the moment with Dave's Greenest Government Ever: still committed to building more of the turbines which no one save scrounging landowners and principle-free renewable energy companies actually wants…. £50,000 pays for the subsequent judicial review. £250,000 buys a bespoke resignation speech, written by top author James Delingpole, for when you finally realise that being a decent Tory MP doesn't fit comfortably within your skillset and that there are careers more closely aligned to your moral outlook. I'm thinking, maybe rare-earth mineral mining in China. Growth industry. Really green! blogs.telegraph.co.uk

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (40292)	5/30/2013 2:36:47 PM
From: Sdgla	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Compelling evidence there is a denialist on mars.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (40292)	5/30/2013 4:26:41 PM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Respond to of 86356

Climate warnings growing shriller as global warming theories fall apart 36 Demonstrating their impeccable timing, liberals have been ramping up talk of global warming and carbon dioxide restrictions smack dab in the middle of a historic cold stretch that has obliterated spring across North America and threatens to encroach on summer. South Dakota is seeing its first May snowfall in half a century, Arkansas its first ever, interstates and schools are shutting down across the Upper Midwest, and cherry blossoms are bloomed a month late. But The New York Times proclaims in a piece called “Climate Warnings, Growing Louder” that 2013 is the year we must finally get serious about the impending planetary meltdown. As I sit here in Manhattan shivering this Memorial Day weekend, I thought I’d ponder all the questions that must be answered before our nation even thinks of passing expensive, intrusive legislation to regulate CO2 emissions, for all those liberals who claim to care about science. Here’s a non-exhaustive list: Is global warming happening? Contrary to all climate change models’ predictions, there has been no global temperature increase since 1998. But that’s alright; According to liberals’ specious, ad hoc explanations, global cooling is actually evidence of global warming, because warming leads to extremes in temperature, which can include cooling. This differs from the global cooling from 1940 to 1970, which was evidence of global cooling. Does CO2 cause global warming? Physicist Richard Muller recently examined which factors predict global temperature over the past 250 years and wrote, “By far the best match [is] to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from… air trapped in polar ice.” Great, but how does Muller know increases in CO2cause temperature increases? In fact, ice core recordsindicate that CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes, which implies that temperature alters CO2 levels. In layman’s terms: The Earth warms, ice melts, plants thrive, animals multiply, and presto!—there’s more CO2 in the air. Is man contributing to global warming? Maybe not. Skeptics note that most 20th-century warming happened before 1940, despite the explosive growth in industrialization after 1940. And non-anthropogenic sources such as sunspot activity, cosmic rays, cloud cover, volcanic eruptions, cyclical variations, and even bovine methane emissions may be contributing more than man. Is global warming harmful? Even if the Earth is warming and man is causing it, global warming may not be harmful to mankind and other species. Looking on a scale of tens of thousands of years, plants and animals have typically thrived in warmer temperatures. Ice ages, after all, aren’t known for their lush vegetation and tropical lifestyles. So it’s not obvious that an increase of a degree every century would wipe mankind off the map. In summation: We definitely should destroy industrial civilization to mitigate the effects of global warming—if it’s actually happening, if it’s caused by CO2, if it’s caused by man, and if it’s harmful. As global warming alarmist-friendly magazine The Economist recently admitted, the jig may finally be up on global warming hysteria, and not a moment too soon. By Scott Spiegel /// May 30, 2013