Reader Tips

5 Replies to “Reader Tips”

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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$$$$$$$$$

4. 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

5. 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.