Tech Central Station is supported by sponsoring corporations that share our faith in technology and its ability to improve modern life. Smart application of technology - combined with pro free market, science-based public policy - has the ability to help us solve many of the world's problems, and so we are grateful to AT&T, ExxonMobil, General Motors Corporation, Intel, McDonalds, Microsoft, Nasdaq, National Semiconductor, PhRMA, and Qualcomm for their support. All of these corporations are industry leaders that have made great strides in using technology for our betterment, and we are proud to have them as sponsors. However, the opinions expressed on these pages are solely those of the writers and not necessarily of any corporation or other organization.Which I find pretty bizarre, especially that 'faith in technology part'. And to use 'faith' and 'science-based' in the same paragraph in support of each other, well, surely this is a mockery of both terms. But then they throw in 'pro free markets' while proudly listing AT&T, Microsoft, ExxonMobile and GM among their sponsors. Don't all of these companies have a history of manipulating markets? And hell, at one time AT&T was the largest monopoly outside of Soviet control. I have bashed these people before for their lunatic rantings. (See "What is Sonia Arrison saying?").
"IPCC scenarios are based on the assumption that increasing levels of carbon dioxide will eventually turn the Earth into a tropical greenhouse. But Ian Castles, an Australian statistician, and David Henderson, a British economist, revealed that the IPCC's estimates of future carbon dioxide emissions take off from flawed and vastly overstated economic projections.So there you have it. A couple of economists have demonstrated that the model used by the IPCC used faulty economic projections which means global warming will not happen. Huh?? I'm not even going to debate the validity of the projections, their methods or any of the rest of this clap trap. I will make a quick point and say that regardless of the projections, if everyone in China wants a car w/in the next twenty years, there won't be enough carbon based fuels on the planet to support the production of that many vehicles, much less running the cars once they are produced w/ out radical changes in technologies and fuels (like zero point energy, or cold fusion, or...).
As it turns out, over the years the IPCC has based its climate change models on simplistic estimates of GDP growth in various countries. Essentially, panel scientists have gotten away with using currency exchange rates -- a value in U.S. dollars -- to predict and total a projected output for the world's disparate economies.
Of course, this produces results which favor the panel's perhaps preordained conclusions. But the researchers point out that the slight-of-hand substitution is invalid. Serious scientific economists use 'purchasing power parity' (PPP) to compare and project national economies.
PPP is the accepted method used by the World Bank, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the United Nations. But by ignoring purchasing power parity, the IPCC was able to project hyper-inflated levels of economic growth -- and consequently carbon emissions -- in the developing world."
"logic and proportion
Have fallen sloppy dead,
And the White Knight is talking backwards
And the Red Queen's off her head"