Hardening businesses and critical infrastructure against predatory attacks is a critically important task.
See: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/technology/chinas-army-is-seen-as-tied-to-hacking-against-us.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&pagewanted=all" rel="nofollow">Chinese Army Unit Is Seen as Tied to Hacking Against U.S.</a>
Train users to be especially careful against "spearphishing attacks". i.e. malicious links in an e-mail that give attackers a foothold inside.
This currently is causing far greater losses than any "global warming", and yet apparently has far less funds to protect against it.
Comment on Adapting to climate change: Challenges and opportunities for U.S. business community by David L. Hagen
↧
↧
Comment on Congressional testimony and normative science by stefanthedenier
Captain Kangaroo | February 19, 2013 at 1:07 am said: ”Pregnant is right Stefan. CO2 causes male pattern baldness which is related to declines in male fertility”
captain, tell us how to make female infertile. By 2100, there will be 9billion people. Indira Gandhi was castrating some men; but all the ladies, for some unknown reason were still getting pregnant…?
If male libido drops down, ladies will be devastated – the higher male libido = the more ladies can control men.
2] by 2099, there will be an ice age… things shrivel like prunes…
Yes, better remember: by 2099 I ”predicted” money back guaranty, that it will be a big ice age!
↧
Comment on Adapting to climate change: Challenges and opportunities for U.S. business community by David L. Hagen
Eloquently stated by Joe Nocera <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/opinion/nocera-how-not-to-fix-climate-change.html?smid=tw-share&_r=2&" rel="nofollow">How Not to Fix Climate Change</a>
<blockquote>the Obama administration should approve the Keystone pipeline, which would transport oil mined and processed from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico. Like it or not, fossil fuels are going to remain the world’s dominant energy source for the foreseeable future, and we are far better off getting our oil from Canada than, say, Venezuela. And the climate change effects of tar sands oil are, all in all, pretty small. . . .In fact, this should be a no-brainer for the president, for all the reasons I stated earlier, and one more: the strategy of activists like McKibben, Brune and Hansen, who have made the Keystone pipeline their line in the sand, is utterly boneheaded. . . . As Adam Brandt, an energy expert at Stanford University, pointed out to me recently, so long as the demand is there, energy producers are going to search for new supplies of fossil fuel — many of them using unconventional means like tar sands extraction. “With growing global demand, the economic pressure to develop unconventional resources is enormous and not going away,” he said. “Can environmental groups expect to win a series of fights for decades to come, when the economic forces are aligned very strongly against them in each round?” The answer is obvious: no. The emphasis should be on demand, not supply. If the U.S. stopped consuming so much of the world’s oil, the economic need for the tar sands would evaporate.</blockquote>
↧
Comment on IEA Facts and Fictions by Chief Hydrologist
No one spends billions without a business plan – and many hundreds of billions are being spent worldwide. Some of these go broke? That’s the point of putting your money where your mouth is.
You read Vol 1 Kim? How heroic – misguided but herioc.
↧
Comment on Adapting to climate change: Challenges and opportunities for U.S. business community by stefanthedenier
if people realize that: water regulates the climate; climate can be improved. build dams to save storm-water in dry countries – introducing moisture in dry lands -> makes milder climate. 2] instead of producing dry heat – which ends up where is vegetation and is preparing it for big bushfires… Less dry heat produced on land – will destroy less moisture created in the sea – that moisture in the air is for replenishing the glaciers, for replenishing the ice on the polar caps. more moisture -> falls on land and fills the lakes / rivers with permanent water.
Instead of squandering money on the phony global warming and adopting to worse climate – money should be spent on IMPROVING THE CLIMATE!!!
Misleading that climate and the phony GLOBAL warmings are one and the same thing, is the biggest crime of the new millenia…
↧
↧
Comment on Congressional testimony and normative science by Beth Cooper
fan oh fan, @8.48pm, you asked fer marks in rocks and that’s what
yer got, not cherry picked or dubious recordings but the oldest known
such bench mark in the world, historical empiric data with provenance
fot the Southern Hemisphere.
‘A bench mark coinciding with high tide was cut into a near-vertical sand
stone cliff on the Isle of the Dead on July 1, 1841.’ (Daly.)
↧
Comment on Congressional testimony and normative science by rob r
Wagathon, you say:
“New Zealand has no temperature record because the official temperature was arrived at through a purposeful manipulation of the raw data without documenting the slightest justification for any of the adjustments made and then simply destroying the raw data altogether.”
That is a rather extreme viewpoint. NIWA say they cant find all the original data. However, there are other historical sources, from which it can be verified that they have not adjusted the original measured data. Some early data may have been misplaced by NIWA, but much of that data is likely to be present in the NZ National Archives, where NIWA can not tamper with it.
I agree that the NIWA version of the NZ instrumental temperature history is poorly justified at present. I also agree that their splicing technique (for station moves and equipment changes) is not particularly robust. But at least they have documented what was done on a site by site basis.
↧
Comment on Congressional testimony and normative science by Joshua
That is a rather extreme viewpoint.
Wags? Really? Extreme?
Can’t be. Must be some mistake.
↧
Comment on Congressional testimony and normative science by steven mosher
It’s actually a pretty poor record as far as documentary records go. Very uncertain and no way to verify. More skepticism please and thank you
↧
↧
Comment on Adapting to climate change: Challenges and opportunities for U.S. business community by Chief Hydrologist
Threadings broken already?
Someone asked the question of whether we wanted ‘externalities’ to be included in the price of energy. Even if we knew what these externalities were and how to price them – the answer is emphatically no. Energy is a fundamental economic input and tightly coupled to global development and economic growth. Restraining energy price increases to the absolutely unavoidable is the key to maximising the opportunities for human dignity for many billions alive today and in the near future.
The key to mitigating carbon is in the development of cheap energy technologies and in social innovation that enhances the health, education and wealth of humanity. True no regrets policies – and truly sustainable development – calculated to succeed where we have seen only failure.
‘Right now, the only possibility of large-scale removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere is through plant photosynthesis and other land-based carbon sequestration activities. Strategies include: enriching soil carbon, farming with perennials, employing climate-friendly livestock practices, conserving natural habitat, restoring degraded watersheds and rangelands, and producing local food. Over the past decade, many of these strategies have been demonstrated to be both practical and profitable. A carbon ranch bundles them into an economic whole with the aim of creating climate-friendly landscapes that are both healthy ecologically and the source of healthy food.’
Sequester 500 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide and feed the world? Meet the next green revolution.
http://www.actionaid.org/2011/11/conservation-farming-leads-way
↧
Comment on Adapting to climate change: Challenges and opportunities for U.S. business community by Peter Lang
David L. Hagen,
Thanks for this. I find it amazing why so many people on the ideological left, especially the CAGW activists, don’t understand it. Why don’t they understand it?
↧
Comment on Congressional testimony and normative science by Chief Hydrologist
A little less leaping and a little more looking would be appropriate mosh.
↧
Comment on Adapting to climate change: Challenges and opportunities for U.S. business community by omanuel
Today we should be celebrating the 540th birthday of Nicolaus Copernicus, the man who reported two major discoveries in 1543:
1. Sol is the fountain of energy at the center of the solar system, and
2. “The distance from the Earth to the Sun is imperceptible in comparison with the height of the firmament.”
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/happy-birthday-nicolaus-copernicus-is-540-today/
The second discovery left little room for those who might later claim control of Earth’s climate and mankind’s fate, independently of the Sun.
↧
↧
Comment on IEA Facts and Fictions by kim
In his dreams. But, after all his caterwauling, I’m a little curious as to his thesis that there is not an imminent shortage of liquid fuels. So, please, Dear Scope, gimme a precis of your thesis; I grade inversely to length. As I cross the border on the ascent of Peak Madness, show me the trail. Slashes on trees might work better than words.
======================
↧
Comment on Congressional testimony and normative science by Steven Mosher
I’ve looked at it before. It’s entirely unclear and unverifiable as to whether the mark was high tide low tide or something in between. basically you have a mark and a recollection. I’ve discussed this case with others here. So, who is leaping?
↧
Comment on Congressional testimony and normative science by Steven Mosher
Joshua
“I don’t agree with that. One of the most frequent questions I’ve heard from international executives is why do Americans, in a business environment, always pontificate so much about things outside their scope of expertise and authority. ”
I suppose you have to distinguish between a meeting of equals and what happens in a normal functioning business.
I’m talking about the latter. If I call in the lawyers for an opinion on the copy I wrote, they dont get to change adjectives. And they know enough not to step on my turf or even make suggestions.
Now, if I meeting with another businessman from another company of course I am going to try to dominate. OF course I am going to attempt to gain authority where I have none. Two different situations.
↧
Comment on Congressional testimony and normative science by Steven Mosher
here willard
“if your goal is for example to confuse and to generate division, then the best method is to make explicit normative statements: “Hi, i’m jim Hansen,climate scientist, I think the science shows we must adopt a carbon tax.”
Connecting the two ideas (which follow one another in your comment) suffice to show the relevance of referring to Hansen’s testimony before Congress, and of implying that it might apply a bit more to the first case than to the second. His **Storm of my Grandchildren** might even be kosher, considering that it might not target any “tough crowd” at all.
1. Its obvious that I used the conditional to show an “example” of how to generate division. Basically it’s not meant to be an exact quote but an example of how one would generate division.
2. I wasnt referring to the 1988 testimony made no mention of the 1988 testimony. I was referring the the below.
3. You could have asked what I was referring to rather than assuming I was talking about 1988, when we both know hansen didnt develop his tax ideas until later, so spare me playing dumb and coy.
If you want to know what I was referring to consider the 2008 testimony where hansen describes his tax. I’ve never seen it written up, but I recall it vividly because of the neat transitional ploys. Very interesting rhetorical trick he plays.. First talking all about the science.. then at a point saying he is outside his realm of expertise, but its just common sense, then a return to the “science shows” and a quick transition to his tax plan. Shifting back and forth between areas of expertise and areas where he is outside his range, then back to science and a quick transition to the tax plan. What he violated was oppenhiemers rule: that you clearly demarcate your science from your personal judgement.
So have a listen, to the whole thing as I dont recall the exact minute
↧
↧
Comment on Congressional testimony and normative science by Steven Mosher
↧
Comment on Congressional testimony and normative science by stefanthedenier
Captain Kangaroo | February 20, 2013 at 9:03 pm said: '' If we ever breed a new species of parrot – we can call it after you – something or other stefanthecriereri''
Be ashamed off yourself! I'm not repeating / parroting after anybody! I have my own theories, proofs and facts; everybody is a witness! Most of you are a bunch of Gallahs; keep repeating the whole year, what IPCC, Hansen & Plimer say!!! Shame, shame! All 6 of you, are making a flock of parrots. Not one of you can see that is NO global warming, CO2 / warming, it's all crap, mushrooms are prolific on crap. Now, apologize in writing; for insinuating that I'm parroting / copying anybody!!!
↧
Comment on Congressional testimony and normative science by A fan of *MORE* discourse
Chief Hydrologist, thank you for providing that wonderful EarthObservatory link!
Uhhh … but did you read its conclusion, Chief???
Chief Hydrologist kindly provides this link:What makes scientists think
humans are causing global warming now?Scientists think the current warming is not from natural influences [bacause] over the past century, scientists from all over the world have been collecting data on natural factors that influence climate—things like changes in the Sun’s brightness, major volcanic eruptions, and cycles such as El Niño and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
These observations have failed to show any long-term changes that could fully account for the recent, rapid warming of Earth’s temperature.
Chief, the final emphasis is NASA’s, not mine!
The EarthObservatory data are compelling too, don’cha think Chief?
The science is strong, eh?
But mighty sobering regarding the accelerating reality of AGW.
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\frown}\,\diamondsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\diamondsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\frown}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Cfrown%7D%5C%2C%5Cdiamondsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cdiamondsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Cfrown%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffeeee&fg=3300ff&s=1 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\frown}\,\diamondsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\diamondsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\frown}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
