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: Eric who wrote (46747)	1/25/2014 10:02:29 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86350

I'm puzzled. Right now, Bakersfield is getting an abundance of sun, especially without the seasonal tule fog , and there is 30% more plant fertilizer in the air than there was when I lived there as a boy. Why are the farmers so unhappy?

To: Eric who wrote (46747)	1/25/2014 10:07:32 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 86350

Frederick Weisberg molested and tortured legal common sense when he stated. Viewing the alleged facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as the court must on a motion to dismiss, a reasonable jury is likely to find the statement that Dr. Mann “molested and tortured data” was false, was published with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not, and is actionable as a matter of law irrespective of special harm. ... But as the foxes and fish freeze and we have the Super Bowlsicle, Mann will have colder and colder receptions.

To: Eric who wrote (46747)	1/25/2014 10:12:04 PM
From: FJB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86350

It was a falsification and creation of data from thin air. Pig Face Mann is a CON Mann...

To: Eric who wrote (46747)	1/25/2014 11:30:42 PM
From: Sdgla	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86350

High Sticking: The Flaws of the IPCC and the Hockey Stick Model Nicolas LorisApril 5, 2010 at 3:17 pm(6) Rajendra Pachauri , chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), responded to the errors exposed in the IPCC report saying that “Scientists are demonised because of one error in 3000 pages of evidence.” Truth be told, there were several errors uncovered in the report including questionable sources in the assessment of mountain ice reduction in the Andes, Alps and Africa as well as acknowledged overstating crop loss in Africa, Amazon rain forest depletion, sea level increases in the Netherlands. But Pachauri only acknowledges that the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035 or sooner was speculative at best. The reality is the IPCC reports have significant flaws; they simply aren’t picked up by the mainstream media. Take the hockey stick theory, for instance. The theory is best explained by a graph that shows a time-series of global temperatures with current and future temperatures increasing at such rapid rates that it resembles the blade of a hockey stick. The graph appeared six times in the IPCC’s 2001 report. Andrew Montford’s new book, The Hockey Stick Illusion, reveals that the problems with the hockey stick theory go back much further than Climategate. In a review of the book, the Prospect Magazine’s Matt Ridley writes: “The emails that were leaked from the University of East Anglia late last year are not proof of this; they are merely the icing on the lake, proof that some of the scientists closest to the hockey stick knew all along that it was problematic. Andrew Montford’s book, despite its subtitle, is not about the emails, which are tagged on as a last chapter. It is instead built around the long, lonely struggle of one man— Stephen McIntyre—to understand how the hockey stick was made, with what data and what programs. A retired mining entrepreneur with a mathematical bent, McIntyre asked the senior author of the hockey stick graph, Michael Mann, for the data and the programs in 2003, so he could check it himself. This was five years after the graph had been published, but Mann had never been asked for them before. McIntyre quickly found errors: mislocated series, infilled gaps, truncated records, old data extrapolated forwards where new was available, and so on. Not all the data showed a 20th century uptick either. In fact just 20 series out of 159 did, and these were nearly all based on tree rings. In some cases, the same tree ring sets had been used in different series. In the end the entire graph got its shape from a few bristlecone and foxtail pines in the western United States; a messy tree-ring data set from the Gaspé Peninsula in Canada; another Canadian set that had been truncated 17 years too early called, splendidly, Twisted Tree Heartrot Hill; and a superseded series from Siberian larch trees. There were problems with all these series: for example, the bristlecone pines were probably growing faster in the 20th century because of more carbon dioxide in the air, or recovery after “strip bark” damage, not because of temperature change. This was bad enough; worse was to come. Mann soon stopped cooperating, yet, after a long struggle, McIntyre found out enough about Mann’s programs to work out what he had done. The result was shocking. He had standardised the data by “short-centering” them—essentially subtracting them from a 20th century average rather than an average of the whole period. This meant that the principal component analysis “mined” the data for anything with a 20th century uptick, and gave it vastly more weight than data indicating, say, a medieval warm spell.” Ridley’s book isn’t the only evidence. Fred Singer recently published an 800 page report entitled, “Climate Change Reconsidered” that questions and debunks many of the conclusions found by the IPCC report. An article written last year by Kesten C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong and scientist Willie Soon write that scientists in many respects are being paid to make, at best, guesses or projections of how climate change actually works and what temperatures will be like in the future. They say, “The models employed by James Hansen and the IPCC are not based on scientific forecasting principles. There is no empirical evidence that they provide long-term forecasts that are as accurate as forecasting that global average temperatures won’t change. Hansen’s, and the IPCC’s, forecasts, and the recommendations based on them, should be ignored.” This especially includes costly regulations on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases our government is willing to impose because the IPCC recommends CO2 is a threat to our health and environment.

To: Eric who wrote (46747)	1/26/2014 1:32:10 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86350

The Global Alarmists have made computer models which give output of predicted climates. Surely you knew that? Apparently not. There is also continued measurement of actual temperatures. The actual temperatures do not match the climate models. That has been the case for years and it's no longer just a travesty [apparently you don't know about that problem in climatology]. <It is simply a fact that Michael Mann took a bunch of data, shoved it in the the maw of his GIGO data manipulator, masticator, mauler, twister, molester and torturer, getting out an envelope of extrapolated made up muck which bore no relationship to what reality subsequently did. Wow... where is your proof?> The proof came from the Alarmist models versus reality. So now you know. Easy. Same for the rest of your comments - you are thinking in 2D inside the checklist. With judges, people should be able to assume they are reasonably educated. For example, the lawyers shouldn't have to explain that there is a word "science" and very basic ideas about what science is. <The judge doesn't have to be knowledgeable about science.. He has to be knowledgeable about "The Law". It's up to the attorneys on both sides to "educate" him and the Jury. > "Your honour, there is an intellectual activity called "science". Science is something ... no wait, we will have to start with what "intellectual" means, and "activity" before we can get to that high-falutin' "science" word." Mqurice

To: Eric who wrote (46747)	1/26/2014 5:00:41 PM
From: jlallen	3 Recommendations Recommended By FJB miraje Thomas A Watson Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86350

This decision results from a motion to summarily dismiss the case....the Court in considering such a motion must construe the pleadings in the light most favorable {in this case} to the Plaintiff, Mann. Courts are generally reluctant to grant such motions.....the great "victory" touted by this thin skinned, phony Nobel Laureate, Mann is anything but... Your further comment that Mann's fraudulent claim to be a Nobel winner is worth nothing in a Court of law is incorrect as would be any proof that he manipulated data, etc. It certainly reflects most directly on Mann's credibility.....or lack thereof in this case. J.