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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (776728)	3/26/2014 6:23:19 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577483

UK professor refuses to put his name to 'apocalyptic' UN climate change survey that he claims is exaggerating the effects Prof Richard Tol said UN academics were exaggerating climate change Comes as a blow to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Panel to publish its first update in seven years on the impacts of climate change By Ben Spencer PUBLISHED: 18:29 EST, 25 March 2014 \| UPDATED: 11:13 EST, 26 March 2014 Criticism: Professor Richard Tol demanded his name be removed from a climate change report, accusing the UN of being too alarmist A climate scientist has accused the United Nations of being too alarmist over global warming – and demanded his name be removed from a crucial new report. Professor Richard Tol, an economist at the University of Sussex, said fellow UN academics were exaggerating climate change and comparing it to the ‘apocalypse’. His comments are a blow to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which on Monday will publish its first update in seven years on the impacts of climate change. Previous IPCC reports on climate impact have been plagued by errors that damaged the body’s credibility. Most famously, it said in 2007 that glaciers in the Himalayas could disappear by 2035, a claim it has since withdrawn. Scientists are meeting in Japan this week to agree the wording of the final document, which will be used to inform policy decisions of governments around the world. Leaked drafts of the report predict that by the end of the century man-made global warming will have done serious harm to the global economy, displaced hundreds of millions of people and created violent conflict. Chapters on flooding, water supply and agriculture estimate huge impacts. Prof Tol, the lead co-ordinating author of the report’s chapter on economics, was involved in drafting the summary for policymakers – the key document that goes to governments and scientists. But he has now asked for his name to be removed from the document. He said: ‘The message in the first draft was that through adaptation and clever development these were manageable risks, but it did require we get our act together. ‘This has completely disappeared from the draft now, which is all about the impacts of climate change and the four horsemen of the apocalypse. This is a missed opportunity.’ Professor Tol told the BBC: ‘You have a very silly statement in the draft summary that says that people who live in war-torn countries are more vulnerable to climate change, which is undoubtedly true. But if you ask people in Syria whether they are more concerned with chemical weapons or climate change, I think they would pick chemical weapons – that is just silliness.’ 'Exaggerating': A scene from the 2004 film The Day After Tomorrow. Professor Tol said said fellow UN academics were exaggerating climate change and comparing it to the 'apocalypse' The report is the second of three IPCC reports addressing the causes, impacts and solutions to climate change. Last September the first report summarised the physical science of climate change, concluding that scientists are 95 per cent certain that humans are the ‘dominant cause’ of global warming. The second part will set out the impact a warming world will have on people, economies, animals and natural ecosystems. The third part, to be finalised next month, will summarise possible mitigation – what we can do to reduce the problem. Prof Tol does not dispute the view that climate change is caused by man – but he says its impact has been exaggerated. However, others say his figures underestimate the economic impact of climate change. Bob Ward, of the London School of Economics, said: ‘Prof Tol’s contribution to the IPCC report has been under scrutiny because he inserted – at a very late stage, so avoiding the IPCC expert review process – a section which publicised his own work. ‘The section contained a number of errors. Prof Tol has expressed extreme reluctance to correct the errors in his work and it does not surprise me that he alone among the 410 authors of this report has refused to endorse the summary.’ But Professor Tol said: ‘Mr Ward is wrong on all scores. No new material was introduced after the expert or indeed the government review. Rather, material was moved from one chapter to another. 'That material was taken from 18 different studies, only two of which by me. All errors that were identified, including a minor one by Mr Ward, have been corrected. No IPCC author is ever asked to endorse the Summary for Policy Makers.’ Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2589424/UK-professor-refuses-apocalyptic-UN-climate-change-survey.html#ixzz2x6soT5QB Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter \| DailyMail on Facebook

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (776728)	3/26/2014 6:34:16 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577483

White House ex-aide: First Lady Michelle Obama has turned East Wing into 'worst wing'Reid Cherlin describes Michelle Obama's office as a "miserable place to work," where every meeting was an identity crisis and the wrong dress was just as bad as a failed policy initiative. BY Leslie Larson , Adam Edelman NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Published: Tuesday, March 25, 2014, 12:22 PM Playing the role of First Lady has squelched Michelle Obama’s spirit, and she’s turned the East Wing into the “worst wing,” a former White House aide claims. The First Lady’s office has become a “confining, frustrating, even miserable place to work,” according to Reid Cherlin, a former West Wing assistant press secretary, who provided a rare account of the inner workings of the East Wing department in an essay for The New Republic. Cherlin, who worked for the Obamas from 2007 to 2011 but has since become a writer, dished about the First Lady’s high expectations and staffers’ sense that everything has to be just right. “The First Lady having the wrong pencil skirt on Monday is just as big of a f--k-up as someone speaking on the record when they didn’t mean to or a policy initiative that completely failed,” Cherlin wrote, quoting an unnamed former colleague. He said that it’s “no big revelation” that the job of First Lady is an embarrassing anachronism. After the 2008 election, he said, “there were hopes that Michelle Obama’s political appeal and charisma would enable her to transform it into something that reflected the role of modern women as equal participants in the political process.” C-Span Former White House aid Reid Cherlin has claimed that Michelle Obama's office is a confining, frustrating and miserable place to work. That never happened, he suggests, because Michelle decided to play it safe — having been burned by the intense criticism she received on the campaign trail when she said, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country.” Staffers long for access to the First Lady, Cherlin says. Meetings with her are rare. When she did invite a staffer to a meeting, it became a “vital status symbol, a way for staffers to measure their worth.” “Every meeting was like an identity crisis, whether you got invited or not,” one former East Winger said. “They don’t want to work for her; they want to be friends with her,” another said. The restrictions Obama reportedly put on her own time created “jealousy and discontentment” among staffers, who squabbled over what little “access and responsibility” she would dispense, Cherlin claimed. [iframe style="width: 0px; height: 0px;"][/iframe] “How can we be the caliber that we’re expected to be with no attention and no resources and being an afterthought,” a former aide said. “All that can make for sparks.” Obama, some of her subordinates told Cherlin, was good at setting a high bar but bad at conveying specific details she desired to see executed — a contradiction one former staffer said created a lot of “friction.” Team members are constantly under pressure to plan her events months in advance and her entire operation is guided by the mantra, “Don’t do it if it’s not going to be perfect” — a saying that often created “paralyzing” anxiety among staffers. For its part, the White House defended the way the First Lady has run the office. “From day one, the First Lady ambitiously set out to make a measurable impact on the lives of everyday American families,” a spokesperson for her office said in a statement given to The New Republic. “The First Lady is laser-focused on moving the needle wherever and whenever possible." nydailynews.com