The really sad thing is that Larry Bell , despite his credentials, is clearly not following the science but the denialist blogosphere. He is very very quick to connect some unrelated non-scientific events to find a conspiracy of third world nations at the UN but cannot do the same with the Koch Brothers, Exxon and CEI. The clue to his ideological blindness is clear from the title. Then he somehow imagines that those same 3rd world nations actually can induce scientists to falsify results on a global basis. Why don't you ask yourself the same question as to how many of the countries who signed on to this facade such as Russia, China, and Brazil are belching out fossil fuel emissions where the "pollutants" are not just CO2 but solid particulate that make a permanent brown cloud over the China (not to mention buying up all the interests they can, not only in this country, but places like Africa, Iraq, and Iran).Then ask yourself why it seems to escape the headlines that these same pundits are involved in convoluted ways with their own oil interests.http://www.sovereignty.net/p/sd/strong.html(a little dated, but historically correct, leaves out a lot of what has gone on since then such as a Soros/Strong partnership in making fossil fuel powered cars in Korea, in hopes of putting American car companies out of business)One thing the article left out was intitally it was Margaret Thatcher that got the ball rolling on this, not because she bought into global warming, but she wanted to give nuclear energy an edge. (In fact, the Union of Concerned Scientists, at MIT, who aren't scientists at all but social scientists, had made a push for nuclear back in the sixties, thinking it would bring world peace. MIT has been rewarded handsomely in all this "data collection". Then as it became clearer the data didn't really back up what she was selling, changed her mind.)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherboo...The IPCC decides which data can and cannot be submitted into the models.Now, you are perfectly free to agree or disagree with their real agenda, but it has nothing at all to do with the consensus of science. And btw, the Koch Brothers, Exxon, and CEI aren't brought up, because all of them including the Kochs are more profitable when everyone and their dog isn't allowed to punch holes, but also don't want to be put out of business by whackos who think this can be done with just windmills. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-12/pickens-losing-to-k...Furthermore, this isn't the first time science and politicians have made an unholy alliance in world history.One has to look at this whole discussion in terms of market manipulators and selective science. Wildcatters vs established players in other parts of the world who moved their assets over there when the enviornmentalists hers went beyond just wanting to keep the environment clean, but knock us back into the dark ages. These guys, however, can be very useful and utilized, when it serves a bigger political agenda.Leftists attempting to seize this issue have NO influence on the scientists or the science. This is my PERSONAL experience from my work at NASA. The scientists aren't interested. They never were interested in the political side of this until the attacks from the neo-libertarian lunatic fringe started to hurt their ability to work. Inaction is far more expensive in the long run, than action. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/27/nicholas-s......Climate change and global warming caused by "vermin" humans and cows, who have the audacity to breathe, drink water, and relieve themself are two different concepts, but these useful idiots can be of use from time to time. I would agree that certain activities can cause localized problems, such as all the black roofs they put down in the seventies to save us from global cooling that create heat sinks (where no so coincidentally many of the T measurements are taken) but that isn't global and does not show a true feed back loop, unless of course, one tweaks a model. There is no way in hell they can put in all the variables that effect climate. The science does not support Forbes. The science is telling Forbes that IT , if it remains a publication dependent on BAU, is doomed. Note: This is not about THIS article but about another of Forbe's frantic efforts to deny reality, also penned by Bell. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/forbes......You have seized on the "Capitalist vs Leftist" perspective take on this issue and reached a wrong conclusion. Capitalism IS destroying itself, helped along by the insane distortion of giving private banks the power to create money from thin air by means of the "fractional reserve" fraud that has been in place for the past hundred years or so. http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/31/therovingcaval.........but that has nothing to do with climate change, that is just reality's well known liberal bias. OH, I see, don't look at the blatant political agenda out of the mouths of the social designers. You act as if science is not laced with politics, and academics never succomb to political agendas, sometimes on purpose, sometimes out of submission.BTW, I went to SUNY Stony Brook. Got my BS and my MA there. Imagine after all that work, I come to find out, who sleeps with whom, determines who is considered an expert and who gets funding. Survival of the fittest indeed.:)
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra