I'm very happy for you Silver.

Now tell me how to buy, grow, or otherwise come into possession the other kind?

 

Paul Stamets book, Mycelium Running, does contain instructions on how to grow magic mushrooms, but he doesn't tell you where to get them... But I'm pretty sure he hints on how to go about getting the spores...

 

People who deny global warming are the gullible and ignorant ones. the proof is becoming clearer every single day.

 

Climategate Update:
Science Hasn’t Failed,
Government Has
What a fascinating week. The leaked e-mails and computer code from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit have become the greatest scientific scandal of our age. The head of the CRU has been forced to step down. Scientists who cooperated with the CRU in other locations, including the United States and New Zealand, are now under investigation.

I’ve been warned, incidentally, that any discussion of global warming will elicit complaints from one side or the other, so I would be better off not bringing it up. The notion that climatology is unacceptable in polite conversation is a huge problem. I’ve been following this debate for over 15 years and have worked with some of the important scientists who have advocated openness and more debate in climate research. Real scientists consider this a legitimate scientific issue, not a partisan one.Moreover, the CRU scandal is enormously relevant to many investor issues. I’d rather lose readers who are offended than fail to keep the rest of you informed. If you’re getting your news from the mainstream media, you may not know yet how damaging this event has been to the credibility of the U.N. and those in the administration who support CO2 controls. (The Canadian press, however, is doing a far better job of covering the story.)

I told subscribers to my newsletter Breakthrough Technology Alert about a year ago, by the way, not to invest in so-called green technologies that rely on subsidies and regulatory interventions. That advice stands now more than ever. Polls show that about three-quarters of Americans consider the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming false or even fraudulent. Given growing anger over deficits and terrible unemployment statistics, harmful environmental measures passed now are likely to be overturned or blocked after the 2010 election cycle.

I saw this coming for several reasons. One is that the lack of scientific ethics exposed by the CRU whistle-blower is not really news. It has been obvious to those of us who were paying attention for a very long time. The leaked documents make it clear, however, to those who don’t understand the mathematical subtleties of regression analysis or program in Fortran.

For the first time, the general public is learning that the CRU climate model, which the U.N. relies on, purposely hid the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). This obfuscation was necessary because the MWP was not just warmer than it is now; it had a generally positive impact on humans. The University of East Anglia now admits, in fact, that the CRU has no real evidence that the climate is warming and says it will take at least three years to recompile and analyze the data.

The climatological-industrial complex, however, is forging ahead as if nothing has happened. Supporters of an incredibly expensive cap-and-trade scheme, in the middle of the worst economic downturn in modern history, are undeterred. Even without the invention of Enron, cap and trade, the EPA is dead set on treating and regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

You know that stuff you exhale in high concentrations: CO2? The EPA apparently thinks pollution results even with miniscule increases in the 0.038% trace levels of CO2 found in the atmosphere. Obviously, slightly elevated CO2 levels have never resulted in cataclysm before. So why does it say so now?

Its theory is that the planet’s ability to absorb CO2 is maxed out. Additional CO2, it says, will therefore result in skyrocketing CO2 levels. This theory, however, is completely unsupported by evidence. Dr. Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol just published as study in Geophysical Research Letters showing that the portion of the atmospheric CO2 absorbed by plant life, mostly in the oceans, has remained stable since 1850.

In fact, it is the failure of the CRU model to properly address the role of the oceans that convinced me long ago that it’s fundamentally missed the boat. Only about 10% of the Earth’s heat storage is atmospheric. About 90% of the Earth’s energy storage takes place in the waters of the oceans. Water, after all, stores far more energy than air.

Furthermore, ocean temperatures are far easier to measure accurately. Many land-based temperature stations have been compromised due to changes in local conditions, mostly increased urbanization. This is not the case with oceans. NASA has more than 3,000 robotic buoys that dive and surface continually all over the world collecting ocean temperature data at different depths. This information has been transmitted via satellite to NASA since 2003. Compiled, it shows clearly that ocean temperatures are falling.

If the oceans were bleeding heat into the atmosphere, we would see higher air temperatures. The Climategate e-mail leak shows, however, that even CRU knows that atmospheric temperatures have fallen since the late ‘90s. This means, I believe, that we are in an extended period of global cooling, not a temporary turnaround. University of Rochester physicists have published recently data showing the historic and central role ocean temperatures play in climate and climate change.

The fact that the U.N.’s climate gurus have destroyed data, hid inconvenient truths and subverted the peer-review process is not, by the way, proof that anthropogenic global warming could not possibly occur. Nor does it prove we are not in a natural period of cooling caused by solar cycles. The only thing it does prove is that models are junk and that the most powerful government-anointed climate scientists have no idea what’s going on — as the leaked e-mails stated over and over again. This is the big lesson. It isn’t science that has failed. Science isn’t dying, as Daniel Henninger said recently in The Wall Street Journal. Real science is a process of discovering the truth through transparency, experimentation and verification. Look around you. You can see the fruits of real science in the increased length and quality of life that we all enjoy. Science is alive and well in the private sector.

Climategate is a failure of politicians and bureaucrats involving over $90 billion in tax-funded research grants. It is complicated by passionately cheerleading environmentalists who have turned their movement into a kind of religion.

The corruption of scientists by government monies is by no means new. It won’t be the last time, either. Nevertheless, the courage of the CRU whistle-blower demonstrates the robustness of science. The truth has come out.

It remains to be seen if the political drive to control human activities and profit from political wealth transfers will prove more powerful, in the short run, than the truth contained in the leaked e-mails and computer code. In the long run, however, I have no doubt that those who embrace fraud will be outed, if not punished.

My focus is on identifying those transformational technologies with the greatest potential for profit and growth. Those opportunities will not go away even if the fraud inherent in the CRU’s sham models are used to hobble the American economy with destructive cap-and-trade taxation or onerous EPA regulation of CO2. India, Russia, China and many other countries have made it clear they will never adopt such economy-killing measures — especially during a period of economic downturn and high unemployment. They stand more than willing to host the revolutionary disruptive industries that are coming onto the scene today. Many of our top scientists and small caps are already being wooed to relocate elsewhere.

Fortunately, polls show that nearly three-quarters of the American people are extremely angry with the government right now. The old media, which are lobbying for some sort of bailout, will continue trying to cover it up. Having not only endorsed the concept of anthropogenic global warming, but attacked skeptics as subhuman, it is impossible for many to admit they were wrong. Science and technology, though, have already provided alternate avenues of information dissemination. The unwillingness of the old media to report one of the most important stories of this young century is evidence they deserve to fail.

The reversal on cap and trade by Australia, along with a likely change in the government, in large part because of Climategate, ought to act as a warning to the administration. If not, then the people will grow angrier yet and we’ll see another iteration of the revolution next year at the ballot boxes. Science cannot be stopped or even perverted for long.

For transformational profits,
Patrick Cox

P.S.: As I said my focus is on identifying the transformational technologies that will offer investors the greatest profit and growth. Subscribers to my Breakthrough Technology Alert newsletters get the benefit of my research and my most my compelling ideas. You can too. Just click here to read more.

 

This fellow is obviously quite the hustler. But what qualifies him as an expert on climate change?

 

Saw a show last week on the glacial ice of the Peruvian Andes melting at extreme rate, when you hear about it from old timers that have seen and lived it for over seventy years, how the fresh water supplies are dwindling, it does give me concern. Global warming, I'm not a scientist, I don't know, but I take stock in what my elders have seen and believe. Guess when polar bears are sharing the beach with me I'll know for sure.

 

I believe in Global warming, and Global cooling. I have just read enough to come to the concussion that it is a cycle the earth goes through. Does mankind play a role? Sure, but I see more evidence that other forces (the Sun, naturally occurring greenhouse gas sources, naturally pollutants, and natural cycles) have a much greater effect on the climate then humans do.

Here is a homework assignment for those who claim to have an open mind when it comes to climate change, look into these issues....

1. Correlation between sun spot activity and the Earth's surface and water temperatures.

2. Name for me one of the main variables that has been "in error" when it comes to extrapolating temperature increases in the future due to CO2 emissions?

3. Now, with corrected data from the "errored" variable, how does an increased CO2 level actually cause cooling?

4. This one is a little off topic, but I think this fact is interesting. In the USA, what is the difference between the amount of acres of forest now compared to 1920?

Also, read some of the research and scientific studies done by Dr. Roy Spencer. He is an award winning climatologist that worked for NASA for years as a senior scientist for climate studies and now is a principal research scientist for UAH.

 

I admit I have yet to read this thread, but I will. This issue has become so contentious and people's beliefs so entrenched that it is futile to argue one way or another, but I thought this documentary, available on Youtube, was very interesting viewing. Within it there are climate scientests, meteorologists, former government ministers etc giving their views on the subject. I would be interested to hear feedback from forumites. Interestingly, even the founder of Greenpeace speaks out about the subject and not in the way people may imagine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs&feature=related

 

So much information and so much missinformation , so many people with thier own adgendas , thier own barrows to push . Confusing scientific data compounded by the fact that there have been so many scientific 'mistakes' in the past. So much that was "scientific fact" when I was young is now disproved and the trend continues.
some interesting observations ;
The swings in clamate throughout history and prehistory.
The 'Dark Ages' were to a great extent the result of a mini ice age , global cooling/climate change.
*
Archeaological evidence locally suggested that the sea level was higher a in recent centuries. When the auther of a book covering recent history and archeaology went to the universaties to find a possable explination, he was told ,"oh yes, the sealevel was in fact somewhere near half a metre higher.
*
A published study in the last year found there was more ice now in the antarctic than there was 40 years ago.
*
Another just recently raised concern over the increased melt rate in easter antarctica. [ok , increased from when ? since the previous indicated ice had been increaseing, leading to the conclusion that when the increase in ice stopped, thier would likely be an increase in melt .. more ice means more ice to melt I would surmise]
*
Yet another long term study published showed there was a possability of the world switching to a cooling fase and that that could happen much faster than previously believed. In fact it stated that if thier obsrved trends were correct and continued we could be heading into another mini ice age within 70 years.
*
The longest running reliable scientific record of measurements relating to climate is one of 'evaporation rates' . these have been recorded accurately in a standardised way around the world in variouse places and when studied in detail had declined, leading to the conclusion that there was overall global shadeing/cooling. This result was the trigger that led to the rethink and eventual change in terminology from "global warming" to "global climate change".
*
Confused ? ,,,,,,,,,, hell yes I am.
*
Very recently published after a "comprehensiie review" of data for this country, nz , by our 'experts'
Yes we are warming, showed data for the last 3 and this decade, [3.9 decades] showing this decade we are 0.05 of a degree warmer than the 80s . the 70's and 90s being in between. One twentyith of a degree warmer.
Wow ! now thats a worry, the 90s were cooler than the 80s and the 70s were somwhere in between and the whloe variation is on twentyith of adegree. shit , build an ark.
*
my conclusion , no one knows . my guess is as good as yours.
conclusion #2. I wish I would live another 100 years to see if there is an answer by then, what it is and what and who were/was right.

 

The majority of scientists are not in agreement with your badly constructed theories. You need to provide credible references to your claims for anyone to even begin to take them seriously. Sure, scientists are sometimes wrong. But, it's the community that decides that something is wrong, not the layman.

 

It doesn't qualify himself as an expert, and further more he himself doesn't advocate himself as an expert. What he does state, is that there is some false information that many are using and promoting as a basis of a potential crisis, the information that has been manually manipulated to show a potential crisis and many will use this information to get extremely wealthy.

Perhaps if you had read this column with some sort of comprehension, you would of come up with the same sort of conclusion that I had come up with, yet perhaps I interpreted it incorrectly, and your initial statement asking ''what qualifies him as an expert on climate change?'' is more on cue.

 

I used to climb and hike Mt. Rainier, the largest glacial system in the contiguous USA, and had allot of old-timers tell me that the glaciers used to terminate at much lower (on the order of 1,000 feet or more) altitudes, than they do today. I used to think that was probably due to normal variations. But, when I read through the data and papers regarding global warming , it does tend to convince me that scientists are on to something.

The first global greenhouse calculations were performed by Arrhenius about 100 years ago who warned us of a gradual climate warming due to industrialization. After 100 years of science, I think scientists are indeed on the right track. I can't fully say all the future warming predictions are accurate, but, I do believe that they indicate the correct trend in our climate. So far, the green house effect due to our CO2 emissions is the only theory that fits. All the other theories may explain minor variations, but not the past 120 years of average warming.

 

People that are talking about the hacked emails are looking at the science of climatology with the narrowness of a microscope. There's allot more to the science than crummy emails.

 

Your conclusion is incorrect. The emails provide nothing whatsoever to support the claims you, the blogger, or any of these other people are claiming they do.

 

The emails provide nothing whatsoever to support the claims you, the blogger, or any of these other people are claiming they do.

 

I think it's funny how the people who can't tell me if it will rain on thursday, are telling us that the polar ice caps will melt and flood the world.

 

i`ll admit to being 37.
and in todays terms not that old.

But. even in my life time i wave seen weather pattens change.
The only point i want to make is this.
You would`nt leave your engine running while in a sealed garage.
which is exatly what we are doing.
What do you thinks gonna happen!

 

reply to whiteye ; Think you totally missunderstood my post, or you read into it what you wanted.
Nowhere did I construct or expound any theory. I simply used published meterial I have read to illustrate my points , which mainly were that there is so much conflicting information , and , that to believe blindly because something is considered to be scientific fact that is, and will never be disproved, is like blind faith.
To finish on an amuseing note. I couldn't follow your last sentence in the post at all. Comunities are predominantly layman and conversely , layman part of comunities, and science can be proven wrong by anyone , usually a scientist , but not exclusively. However a comunity can't really just decide science is wrong. thats unscientific.
I have reread my post , may I respectfully suggest you do also and read what it actually says rather than what you think I was saying.
interestingly, though I make no claims , by definition [dictionary] I am not a layman, not that I or anyone else gives a fat rats #@*

 

You never stated the sources of your material. You do have a theory, whether you you realize it or not. Your theory is that the science of climatology is wrong. Before you come out and make a statement like that, you have to back it up, otherwise it's only an opinion. You haven't proven anything or backed up what you write. Remember that to refute anthropogenic global warming theory, you have to supply a better explanation, which you haven't done. I am a scientist, but consider myself a laymen as well since I am not a climatologist or an practicing atmospheric physicist, although I have studied it academically. I do not blindly follow science since I have done an extensive amount of study of the issues. It took me a long time before I accepted the global warming theory, by the way. The theory is not definite, but it is very likely. Global warming theory may be disproven some day, but, that is an unlikely event.