Re: Financial topics
Posted: Tue May 27, 2014 3:24 pm
http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/to ... ICE!&csz=1
http://www.modernfeudalserf.org/article ... _scam.html
So, where are the so called Republicans? Yea thought so...
Karl Marx was a correspondence and political analyst for Horace Greeley, owner of the New York Times. In 1849 both Horace Greeley and Clinton
Roosevelt financially assisted the Communist league in London, in the publication of the Communist Manifesto. There are two cheques made payable
to Marx by Nathan Rothschild, which can be seen on display at the British Museum in London"
Here’s the “fudge factor” (notice [he] actually called it that in his REM statement):
‘yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
‘valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
‘These 2 lines of code establish a 20-element array (yrloc) comprising the year 1400 (base year, but not sure why needed here) and 19 years between 1904 and 1994 in half-decade increments. Then the corresponding “fudge factor” (from the valadj matrix) is applied to each interval. As you can see, not only are temperatures biased to the upside later in the century (though certainly prior to 1964) but a few mid-century intervals are being biased slightly lower. That, coupled with the post-1930 restatement we encountered earlier, would imply that in addition to an embarrassing false decline experienced with their MXD [tree-ring proxies] after 1960 (or earlier), CRU’s “divergence problem” also includes a minor false incline after 1930. And the former apparently wasn’t a particularly well-guarded secret, although the actual adjustment period remained buried beneath the surface.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
http://www.epa.gov/agstar/documents/wor ... /ploss.pdf
Conclusion
Virtually every concern heightened by the economic downturn, especially job losses, would be exacerbated under the ANPR. As with cap-and-trade legislation, the EPA's suggested rulemaking would be poison to an already sick economy. But even in the best of economic times, this policy would likely end them. The estimated costs -- close to $7 trillion dollars and 3 million manufacturing jobs lost -- are staggering. So is the sweep of regulations that could severely affect nearly every major energy-using product from cars to lawnmowers, and a million or more businesses and buildings of all types. And all of this sacrifice is in order to make, at best, a minuscule contribution to an overstated environmental threat. Congress has wisely resisted implementing anything this costly and impractical. The fact that unelected and unaccountable EPA bureaucrats are trying to do the opposite is all the more objectionable.
http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... regulation
Ben Lieberman is Senior Policy Analyst in Energy and the Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
The EPA are just Brown shirts.
http://www.amazon.com/Government-Bullie ... nt+bullies
The 'global warming' debate is not really a debate about climatology - it is a debate about freedom. It is the aim of the growing world-government faction among the international classe politique to take away our hard-won freedom and democracy forever.
http://www.amazon.com/Air-Con-Seriously ... 470&sr=1-1
Those who read it will help to forestall the new Fascists and so to keep us free. --Lord Christopher Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, former scientific advisor to Margaret Thatcher --Christopher Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley
http://www.modernfeudalserf.org/article ... _scam.html
So, where are the so called Republicans? Yea thought so...
Karl Marx was a correspondence and political analyst for Horace Greeley, owner of the New York Times. In 1849 both Horace Greeley and Clinton
Roosevelt financially assisted the Communist league in London, in the publication of the Communist Manifesto. There are two cheques made payable
to Marx by Nathan Rothschild, which can be seen on display at the British Museum in London"
Here’s the “fudge factor” (notice [he] actually called it that in his REM statement):
‘yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
‘valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
‘These 2 lines of code establish a 20-element array (yrloc) comprising the year 1400 (base year, but not sure why needed here) and 19 years between 1904 and 1994 in half-decade increments. Then the corresponding “fudge factor” (from the valadj matrix) is applied to each interval. As you can see, not only are temperatures biased to the upside later in the century (though certainly prior to 1964) but a few mid-century intervals are being biased slightly lower. That, coupled with the post-1930 restatement we encountered earlier, would imply that in addition to an embarrassing false decline experienced with their MXD [tree-ring proxies] after 1960 (or earlier), CRU’s “divergence problem” also includes a minor false incline after 1930. And the former apparently wasn’t a particularly well-guarded secret, although the actual adjustment period remained buried beneath the surface.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
http://www.epa.gov/agstar/documents/wor ... /ploss.pdf
Conclusion
Virtually every concern heightened by the economic downturn, especially job losses, would be exacerbated under the ANPR. As with cap-and-trade legislation, the EPA's suggested rulemaking would be poison to an already sick economy. But even in the best of economic times, this policy would likely end them. The estimated costs -- close to $7 trillion dollars and 3 million manufacturing jobs lost -- are staggering. So is the sweep of regulations that could severely affect nearly every major energy-using product from cars to lawnmowers, and a million or more businesses and buildings of all types. And all of this sacrifice is in order to make, at best, a minuscule contribution to an overstated environmental threat. Congress has wisely resisted implementing anything this costly and impractical. The fact that unelected and unaccountable EPA bureaucrats are trying to do the opposite is all the more objectionable.
http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... regulation
Ben Lieberman is Senior Policy Analyst in Energy and the Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
The EPA are just Brown shirts.
http://www.amazon.com/Government-Bullie ... nt+bullies
The 'global warming' debate is not really a debate about climatology - it is a debate about freedom. It is the aim of the growing world-government faction among the international classe politique to take away our hard-won freedom and democracy forever.
http://www.amazon.com/Air-Con-Seriously ... 470&sr=1-1
Those who read it will help to forestall the new Fascists and so to keep us free. --Lord Christopher Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, former scientific advisor to Margaret Thatcher --Christopher Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley
