Warming Alarmists Could Use Lesson On History Of Climate

[FGB]

Warming Alarmists Could Use Lesson On History Of Climate

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...ers-arent-backed-by-history.htm#ixzz3OGnurpYp

We know, because they say so, that those who think catastrophic global warming is probable and perhaps imminent are exemplary empiricists. Those who disagree with them are "climate change deniers" disrespectful of science.

Actually, however, something about which everyone can agree is that of course the climate is changing
More... http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...warming-believers-arent-backed-by-history.htm

 

[KingOrfeo]

Ah, yes, Investor's Business Daily.

Investor's Business Daily (IBD) is an American "newspaper" (with associated website) that (obviously) covers mostly financial, business, and investment news. Put simply, it's more or less the poor man's Wall Street Journal, which goes for its editorial pages as well. Its op-eds are, similarly, notably batty but a thousand times worse, being chock-full of Ben Steinery along with numerous denialist hit pieces, astroturf, and mouthing off by bottom-of-the-barrel wingnuts (e.g., Brent Bozell).

Their editorial cartoons can get very nutty,[1] and their anti-environmentalism can reach astounding heights.[2] At times, they venture into full-on, balls-out conspiracy theory territory when it comes to global warming, including accusing NASA and NOAA of conspiring to manipulate data[3] and fabricated the now popular denialist talking point that James Hansen is a shill for George Soros.[4] (Oh, can't forget Climategate, of course, they were all over that.) This is even less surprising when you notice that they let lobbyists and PR reps for denialist think tanks like the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and experts for hire like Michael Fumento pen their bullshit all over IBD's pages. There's the other usual anti-environmental nonsense as well, including DDT denial and second-hand smoke denial.

IBD's most infamous op-ed was one that, in trying to make an argument against Obamacare, claimed Stephen Hawking would have been euthanized by the NHS if he lived in Britain. Hawking then replied that he credits the NHS with saving his life. In true IBD fashion, they then issued a "correction" noting that the "implication" in the column that Hawking was not a citizen of the UK had been "fixed."[5] They still post less than-accurate-information on Obamacare to this day.

On personal finance matters, IBD promotes investing using CAN SLIM, a pseudoscientific technical analysis of stocks developed by IBD founder William J. O'Neil. One of the claims frequently found in IBD is that a price graph in a "cup and handle" shape indicates an ideal time to buy a stock.

 

[FGB]

Yeah ,yeah & yeah SOS BUT did you read it?

 

[phrodeau]

If you're really serious about your investments, read this: http://www.theguardian.com/environm...stay-buried-prevent-climate-change-study-says

Vast amounts of oil in the Middle East, coal in the US, Australia and China and many other fossil fuel reserves will have to be left in the ground to prevent dangerous climate change, according to the first analysis to identify which existing reserves cannot be burned.

The new work reveals the profound geopolitical and economic implications of tackling global warming for both countries and major companies that are reliant on fossil fuel wealth. It shows trillions of dollars of known and extractable coal, oil and gas, including most Canadian tar sands, all Arctic oil and gas and much potential shale gas, cannot be exploited if the global temperature rise is to be kept under the 2C safety limit agreed by the world’s nations.

The new analysis calls into question the gigantic sums of private and government investment being ploughed into exploration for new fossil fuel reserves, according to UCL’s Professor Paul Ekins, who conducted the research with McGlade. “In 2013, fossil fuel companies spent some $670bn (£443bn) on exploring for new oil and gas resources. One might ask why they are doing this when there is more in the ground than we can afford to burn,” he said.

“The investors in those companies might feel that money is better spent either developing low-carbon energy sources or being returned to investors as dividends,” said Ekins.

“One lesson of this work is unmistakably obvious: when you’re in a hole, stop digging,” said Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org which is campaigning to get investors to dump their fossil fuel stocks. “These numbers show that unconventional and ‘extreme’ fossil fuel – Canada’s tar sands, for instance – simply have to stay in the ground.”

If your pension or IRA is invested in fossil fuels, it's best to get it out. That money will probably go to waste.

In the link, there's a video with neat graphics, for those who are reading-comprehension-challenged.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Ooooh are we gonna have yet another beatdown over the denialist misuse of the word "imminent" again?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Yeah ,yeah & yeah SOS BUT did you read it?

Linky no worky -- it goes to the IBD site but just a blank page of it.