sda2.jpg

February 1, 2007

Reader Tips

Y2Kyoto - I'm with Lorrie Goldstein. There isn't a politician in the nation who believes in climate change doomsday.

Climate Catastrophe Cancelled - from the University of Calgary.

The New York Times, on the other hand...

Two Americas - a garage big enough to house both of them.

The continuing saga of "Jamil Hussein". The AP goes back to Hurriyah

Add yours in the comments...


Posted by Kate at February 1, 2007 12:53 AM
Comments

Goldstein has it about right. The real question will be what will the climate porn be for a cold wet spring?

From what I understand about your neck of the woods Kate the water table was on the above normal side, before all of the snow. So are we looking at floods like like in 1996? (i think the year is right) if you get a fast melt that the ground cant soak up, or more importantly rain so there is no evaportation....will floods caused by a cold wet spring be a global warming phenomena?

I noticed in the preview of the IPCC report that they are NOW saying that there will be fewer hurricanes but they will be more violent when they happen.....hey wait a second I thought we were supposed to get more hurricanes that were more violent......oh thats right, they really have no idea but they have to somehow explain last year.......it is a con.

Posted by: stephen at February 1, 2007 6:11 AM

Margaret Wente wrote a good piece in the G&M on the 27th. In fact, it's the first rational thing I've read about global warming and Kyoto in that paper.

Posted by: DrD at February 1, 2007 7:24 AM

Power Financial Unit to Buy Putnam for $3.9 Billion Power Financial Corp., the owner of Canada's biggest mutual-fund company, agreed to buy Boston-based Putnam Investments from Marsh & McLennan Cos.
(Bloomberg)

Desmarais: Martin, Chretien, Rae, Mulroney, et al.

Don't forget Uncle Mao Strong.

Librano$$$$$$$$$

Posted by: maz2 at February 1, 2007 7:55 AM

Oh, this is good...

From "PROCEDURES FOR THE PREPARATION, REVIEW, ACCEPTANCE, ADOPTION, APPROVAL AND PUBLICATION OF IPCC REPORTS" http://www.ipcc.ch/about/app-a.pdf

Section 4.2, p.4

"Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those
necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter."

Now scroll up to the "defintions" section, and note the meaning of "acceptance".

Ladies and gentlemen, get ready for "finely nuanced" revisions of key sections in the months between release of the summaries and that of the final report.

h/t Jon Sanders at Townhall, but with a broken link

Posted by: Tenebris at February 1, 2007 8:25 AM

It's not true, that one fluorescent light is only worth 1/3 of a conventional. I use 3 of them in my kitchen and pay for 42 Wt of electricity, but enjoy more light than from two 60 Wt conventional lights. You don't stop being concervative, if you admit the obvious, even if it's about energy savings.

As far as a few acres of forest being clear cut for an estate - it's disgusting.

Posted by: Aaron at February 1, 2007 8:39 AM
Site
Meter