‘Shut Your Mouth, War Is Hell’

1:37 PM, Jan 13, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER

Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), a former Army lieutenant colonel, sends THE WEEKLY STANDARD an email commenting on the Marines’ video, and has given us permission to publish it.

“I have sat back and assessed the incident with the video of our Marines urinating on Taliban corpses. I do not recall any self-righteous indignation when our Delta snipers Shugart and Gordon had their bodies dragged through Mogadishu. Neither do I recall media outrage and condemnation of our Blackwater security contractors being killed, their bodies burned, and hung from a bridge in Fallujah.

“All these over-emotional pundits and armchair quarterbacks need to chill. Does anyone remember the two Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division who were beheaded and gutted in Iraq?

“The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter.

“As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.”

Source

Comments »

An extensive misconduct investigation that took three years to complete and produced a 60,000-page report, concludes that a researcher who has come to prominence in recent years for his investigations into the beneficial properties of resveratrol, a compound found in red wine, “is guilty of 145 counts of fabrication and falsification of data”.

In a statement published on the university’s news website on Wednesday, the University of Connecticut (UConn) Health Center said the investigation has led them to inform 11 scientific journals that had published studies conducted by Dr Dipak K. Das, a professor in the unversity’s Department of Surgery and director of its Cardiovascular Research Center.

The internal investigation, which covered seven years of work in Das’s lab, was triggered by an anonyomous allegation of “research irregularities” in 2008.

Read the rest here.

Comments »

By Sharyl Attkisson

(CBS News)

WASHINGTON – Solar panel maker Solyndra received a $528 million Energy Department loan in 2009 – and  went bankrupt last year. The government’s risky investment strategy didn’t stop there, as a CBS News investigation has uncovered a pattern of cases of the government pouring your tax dollars into clean energy.

Take Beacon Power — a green energy storage company. We were surprised to learn exactly what the Energy Department knew before committing $43 million of your tax dollars.

Documents obtained by CBS News show Standard and Poor’s had confidentially given the project a dismal outlook of “CCC-plus.”

Read the documents

Asked whether he’d put his personal money into Beacon, economist Peter Morici replied, “Not on purpose.”

“It’s, it is a junk bond,” Morici said. “But it’s not even a good junk bond. It’s well below investment grade.”

Was the Energy Department investing tax dollars in something that’s not even a good junk bond? Morici says yes.

“This level of bond has about a 70 percent chance of failing in the long term,” he said.

In fact, Beacon did go bankrupt two months ago and it’s unclear whether taxpayers will get all their money back. And the feds made other loans when public documents indicate they should have known they could be throwing good money after bad.

It’s been four months since the FBI raided bankrupt Solyndra. It received a half-billion in tax dollars and became a political lightning rod, with Republicans claiming it was a politically motivated investment.

CBS News counted 12 clean energy companies that are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance. Five have filed for bankruptcy: The junk bond-rated Beacon, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, AES’ subsidiary Eastern Energy and Solyndra.

Others are also struggling with potential problems. Nevada Geothermal — a home state project personally endorsed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid —  warns of multiple potential defaults in new SEC filings reviewed by CBS News. It was already having trouble paying the bills when it received $98.5 million in Energy Department loan guarantees.

SunPower landed a deal linked to a $1.2 billion loan guarantee last fall, after a French oil company took it over. On its last financial statement, SunPower owed more than it was worth. On its last financial statement, SunPower owed more than it was worth. SunPower’s role is to design, build and initially operate and maintain the California Valley Solar Ranch Project that’s the subject of the loan guarantee.

First Solar was the biggest S&P 500 loser in 2011 and its CEO was cut loose – even as taxpayers were forced to back a whopping $3 billion in company loans.

Nobody from the Energy Department would agree to an interview. Last November at a hearing on Solyndra, Energy Secretary Steven Chu strongly defended the government’s attempts to bolster America’s clean energy prospects. “In the coming decades, the clean energy sector is expected to grow by hundreds of billions of dollars,” Chu said. “We are in a fierce global race to capture this market.”

Economist Morici says even somebody as smart as Secretary Chu — an award-winning scientist — shouldn’t be playing “venture capitalist” with tax dollars. “Tasking a Nobel Prize mathematician to make investments for the U.S. government is like asking the manager of the New York Yankees to be general in charge of America’s troops in Afghanistan,” Morici said. “It’s that absurd.”

Read the rest here.

Comments »

Winning A Climate Bet

Predictions, Neils Bohr once said, are difficult, especially about the future. They are even more interesting however, when there is money at stake.

In December 2007 I wrote what I thought was quite a straightforward article for the New Statesman pointing out that it was curious that when so many voices were telling us that global warming was out of control, and that the global warming effect dwarfed natural fluctuations, the global annual average temperature hadn’t increased for many years. I wasn’t promoting any particular point of view just describing the data. The New Statesman jumped at it.

It caused quite a storm resulting in an Internet record number of comments that were complimentary by a large majority, although there were some less than supportive remarks. It evidently also caused quite a fuss in the offices of the New Statesman. Realclimate.com responded with, in my view, an unsatisfactory knock-down of my piece based on trend lines, which I had expected. Trend lines, especially of indeterminate length in the presence of noise, can tell you almost anything, and nothing.

The New Statesman environment correspondent Mark Lynas chipped in eventually with, “I’ll be blunt. Whitehouse got it wrong – completely wrong,” after saying he was initially reluctant to comment. He reproduced Realclimate.com’s trendlines argument and accused me of deliberately or otherwise setting out to deceive. It was a scientifically ignorant article which subsequent events, and peer-reviewed literature, emphasise. Moreover, when I asked New Statesman for redress against such an unnecessary, and in my view unprofessional insult, they declined, and stopped answering my emails. In doing so they missed out on an important, though perhaps inconvenient, scientific story.

More or Less

To my surprise interest in my article was worldwide, and eventually the BBC’s radio programme “More or Less” got in touch. The programme is about numbers and statistics and they set up a series of interviews. You can hear the programme here.

Almost at the last minute the programme-makers came up with the idea of a bet. It was for £100 that, using the HadCrut3 data set, there would be no new record set by 2011. It was made between climatologist James Annan and myself. His work involves analysing climatic data and validating climate models. He accepted enthusiastically as he has a perchant for taking on ‘sceptics.’ The presenter said that if the global temperature didn’t go up in the next few years, “there would be some explaining to do.”

Later today, January 13^th, “More or Less” returns to the bet, which I am pleased to say I won, though I note that this bet, or its conclusion, is not yet mentioned on Annan’s Wikipedia entry despite his other climate bet being discussed.

Writing shortly after the wager was placed James Annan said he believed it was a fairly safe bet, though not certain, as the trend since the current warming spell began, around 1980, was upward (showing those same trendlines!) He drew a straight line from 1980 to 2007 and projected it forwards concluding that sometime over the next few years HadCrut3 would rise above its highest point which was in 1998 (a strong El Nino year.)

The problem with this approach is that it destroys all information in the dataset save the gradient of the straight line. In climate terms 30 years is usually held to be the shortest period to deduce trends (though shorter periods are used often if the trend deduced is deemed acceptable) but that is not to say there is not important information on shorter periods such as volcanic depressions, El Nino rises and La Nina dips. Then there are the so-called, poorly understood decadal variations.

My view was that the information in the dataset was important, especially if projecting it forward just a few years when natural variations were clearly dominant. Looking at HadCrut3 it is clear that there isn’t much of an increase in the 1980s, more of an increase in the 1990s, then there is the big 1998 El Nino, followed by no increase in the past decade or so. It therefore seemed far more likely that the temperature would continue what it had been doing in the recent past than revert to an upward trend, in the next few years at least.

My approach was to listen to the data. The approach taken by James Annan was flawed because he didn’t. He imposed a straight line on the data due to theoretical considerations. I always wonder about the wisdom of the approach that uses straight lines in climatic data. Why should such a complex system follow a straight line? Indeed, the rise of HadCrut3 is not a straight line, but the past ten years is, and that in my view is very curious, and highly significant.

Why, I wonder start the linear increase in 1980? Obviously the temperature starts rising then, but why not start the straight line in 1970? The answer is that the temperature is flat between 1970 and 1980. It seems illogical to take notice of flat data at the start of a dataset but totally ignore it at the end!

When a record is not a record

During the recent interview for “More or Less” James Annan said that had other temperature databases been used he would have won. This is a moot point that also strongly reaffirms my stance. In NasaGiss 2010 is the warmest year, with a temperature anomaly of 0.63 deg C, only one hundredth of a degree warmer than 2005, and within a whisker of 2007, 2006, 2002, 2001 and 1998. Given the 0.1 deg C errors even Nasa did not claim 2010 as a record. Technically speaking 2010 was slightly hotter because of a strong El Nino. Otherwise, NasaGiss shows hardly any increase in the past decade.

During the “More or Less” interview the question arose of extending the bet to “double or quits” for the next five years. I was game for it with a proviso. Betting against a record for ten years raises a higher possibility that there might be a statistical fluctuation than betting for five years. Because of this I would like to see two annual datapoints, consecutively more than one sigma above the 2001 – date mean level. After all, that is the minimum statistical evidence one should accept as being an indication of warming. James Annan did not commit to such a bet during the programme.

It just has to start getting warmer soon.

Back in 2007 many commentators, activists and scientists, such as Lynas, said the halt in global temperatures wasn’t real. It is interesting that the Climategate emails showed that the certainty some scientists expressed about this issue in public was not mirrored in private. Indeed, one intemperate activist, determined to shoot my New Statesman article down but unable to muster the simple statistics required to tackle the statistical properties of only 30 data points, asked the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and the Met Office, to provide reasons why I was wrong, which they couldn’t.

What was true in 2007 is even more so in 2012. Since 2007 the reality of the temperature standstill has been accepted and many explanations offered for it, more than can possibly be true! We have seen predictions that half of the years between 2009 and 2014 would be HadCrut3 records (a prediction that now can’t possibly come to pass) which was later modified to half of the years between 2010 and 2015 (likewise.) The Met Office predict that 2012 -16 will be on average 0.54 deg C above the HadCrut3 baseline level, and 2017 -2021 some 0.76 deg C higher. Temperatures must go up, and quickly.

So how long must this standstill go on until bigger questions are asked about the rate of global warming? When asked if he would be worried if there was no increase in the next five years James Annan would only say it would only indicate a lower rate of warming! Some say that 15 years is the period for serious questions.

We are already there

In a now famous (though even at the time obvious) interview in 2010 Prof Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia confirmed that there was no statistically significant warming since 1995. There was an upward trend, but it was statistically insignificant, which in scientific parlance equates to no trend at all. In 2011 Prof Jones told the BBC that due to the inclusion of the warmish 2010 there was now a statistically significant increase between 1995 and 2010. Since 2011 was cool it doesn’t take complicated statistics to show that the post 1995 trend by that method of calculation is now back to insignificant, though I don’t expect the BBC to update its story.

The lesson is that for the recent warming spell, the one that begins about 1980, the years of standstill now exceed those with a year-on-year increase. It is the standstill, not the increase, that is now this warm period’s defining characteristic.

The nature of the anthropogenic global warming signal is that, unlike natural fluctuations, it is always additive. Sooner or later, it is argued, it will emerge unambiguously, perhaps at different times in different parts of the world, but it must emerge. Some argue that by the time it does it will already be too late, but that is another debate.

James Annan is keen on a “money markets” approach to forecasting global warming, and bemoans the reticence of so-called climate sceptics to put their money where their mouth is! I hope that his early-stage financial loss won’t be too much of a setback and a deterrence for potential investors, not that I will be among them.

Now that I am joining the ranks of those who have made money out of global warming (or rather the lack of it) I wonder where the smart money will be placed in the future.

Source

Comments »

At the very least, there is massive amounts of interesting data points that correlate to the markets.

Cheers on your holiday weekend !

[youtube://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ssrcD5GdPQ 450 300] [youtube://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImuVUab6WW0&feature=endscreen&NR=1 450 300] [youtube://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qsll_5-FXc&feature=related 450 300] [youtube://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK-741ISz94&feature=related 450 300] [youtube://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQf-u2nCVSw&feature=endscreen&NR=1 450 300]

 

 

Comments »

As per some French newspaper.

 

 

Comments »

Apple Suppliers 2011
AAC Technologies Holdings Inc.

AcBel Polytech Inc.

Acument Global Technologies

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

Amperex Technology Ltd.

Amphenol Corporation
Analog Devices, Inc.

Anjie Insulating Material Co., Ltd.

Asahi Kasei Corporation

AU Optronics Corporation

Austria Technologie & Systemtechnik

AG austriamicrosystems

Avago Technologies Ltd.

Brady Corporation

Brilliant International Group Ltd.

Broadcom Corporation

Broadway Industrial Group Ltd.

ByD Company Ltd.

Career Technology (MFG.)

Catcher Technology Co., Ltd.

Cheng Loong Corporation

Cheng Uei Precision Industry Co., Ltd.

(Foxlink) Chimei Innolux Corporation

Coilcraft, Inc.

Compeq Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

Cosmosupplylab Ltd.

CymMetrik (Shenzhen)Printing Co

Cyntec Co., Ltd.

Cypress Semiconductor Corporation

Daishinku Corporation (KDS)

Darfon Electronics Corporation

Delta Electronics Inc.

Diodes Inc.
Dynapack International Technology

Elpida Memory, Inc.

Emerson Electric Co.

ES Power Co., Ltd.
Fairchild Semiconductor

International Fastening Technology Pte Ltd.

FLEXium Interconnect, Inc.

Flextronics International Ltd.
Fortune Grand Enterprise Co., Ltd.

Foster Electric Co., Ltd.

Fuji Crystal Manufactory Ltd.

Fujikura Ltd.
Grand Upright Technology Ltd.

Gruppo Dani S.p.A.

Gruppo Peretti

Hama Naka Shoukin Industry Co., Ltd.

Hanson Metal Factory Ltd.
Heptagon Advanced Micro-Optics Pte Ltd.

Hi-P International Ltd.

Hitachi-LG Data Storage

Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd. (Foxconn)

Hynix Semiconductor Inc.

Ibiden Co., Ltd.

Infineon Technologies

AG Intel Corporation
Interflex Co., Ltd.

International Rectifier Corporation

Intersil Corporation

Inventec Appliances Corporation

Jabil Circuit, Inc.

Japan Aviation Electronics Industry, Ltd.

Jin Li Mould Manufacturing Pte Ltd.

Kaily Packaging Pte Ltd.

Kenseisha Sdn. Bhd.

Knowles Electronics

Kunshan

Changyun Electronic Industry

Laird Technologies

Lateral Solutions Pte Ltd.

Lens One Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.

LG Chem, Ltd.

LG Display Co., Ltd.

LG Innotek Co., Ltd.

Linear Technology Corporation

Lite-On Technology Corporation

Longwell Company

LSI Corporation

Luen Fung Commercial Holdings Ltd.

Macronix International Co., Ltd.

Marian, Inc.

Marvell Technology Group Ltd.

Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.

Meiko Electronics Co., Ltd.

Microchip Technology Inc.

Micron Technology, Inc.

Mitsumi Electric Co., Ltd.

Molex Inc.

Multek Corporation

Multi-Fineline Electronix, Inc.

Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

Nan ya Printed Circuit Board Corporation

NEC Corporation

Nippon Mektron, Ltd.

Nishoku Technology Inc.

NVIDIA Corporation

NXP Semiconductor N.V.

ON Semiconductor Corporation

Optrex Corporation

Oriental Printed Circuits Ltd.

Panasonic Corporation

PCH International

Pegatron Corporation

Pioneer Material Precision Tech

Prent Corporation

Primax Electronics Ltd.

Qualcomm Incorporated

Quanta Computer Inc.

Renesas Electronics Corporation

Ri-Teng Computer Accessory Co., Ltd.

ROHM Co., Ltd.

Rubycon Corporation

Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

SanDisk Corporation

SANYO Electric Co., Ltd.

SDI Corporation

Seagate Technologies

Seiko Epson Corporation

Seiko Group
Sharp Corporation

Shimano Inc.

Shin Zu Shing Co., Ltd.

Silego Technology Inc.

Simplo Technology Co., Ltd.

Skyworks Solutions Inc.

Sony Corporation

Standard Microsystems Corporation

STMicroelectronics

Sumida Corporation

Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.

Sunrex Technology Corporation

Suzhou Panel Electronic Co., Ltd.

Taiyi Precision Tech Corporation

Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd.

TDK Corporation
Texas Instruments Inc.

Tianjin Lishen Battery Joint-Stock Co., Ltd.

Toshiba Corporation

Toshiba Mobile Display Co., Ltd.

Toyo Rikagaku Kenkyusho Co., Ltd.

TPK Holding Co., Ltd.

Tripod Technology Corporation

TriQuint Semiconductor

Triumph Lead Electronic Tech Co.

TXC Corporation

Unimicron Corporation

Unisteel Technology Ltd.

Universal Scientific Industrial Co., Ltd.

Vishay Intertechnology

Volex plc

Western Digital Corporation

Wintek Corporation

yageo Corporation

Zeniya Aluminum Engineering, Ltd.

Comments »

Comments »

(via)

NCAA President Mark Emmert would support a four-team playoff in college football — as long as the field doesn’t grow.

After giving his annual state of the association speech Thursday in Indianapolis, Emmert acknowledged he would back a small playoff if that’s what Bowl Championship Series officials decide to adopt.

“The notion of having a Final Four approach is probably a sound one,” Emmert said when asked what he heard coming out of New Orleans this week. “Moving toward a 16-team playoff is highly problematic because I think that’s too much to ask a young man’s body to do. It’s too many games, it intrudes into the school year and, of course, it would probably necessitate a complete end to the bowl system that so many people like now.”

Emmert spoke two days after the 11 Bowl Championship Series conferences met to discuss possible changes to the system starting in 2014, but there is no consensus yet.

BCS Executive Director Bill Hancock said Tuesday that 50-60 possibilities for various changes were presented during a deliberate meeting in New Orleans, where Alabama beat LSU in the BCS title game Monday night. Hancock anticipates it will take another five to seven meetings to reach a conclusion in July.

One possibility is the four-team playoff, or the so-called plus-one approach, that would create two national semifinals and a championship game played one week later. The original proposal, made in 2008 by the commissioners of the Southeastern Conference and Atlantic Coast Conference, was emphatically shot down by the leaders of the Big Ten, Pac-10, Big East, Big 12 and Notre Dame.

The BCS title game pits the nation’s top two teams based on poll and computer rankings.

But momentum is clearly growing for a larger playoff system.

Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany acknowledged this week that he would now consider the prospect of a four-team field.

“Four years ago, five of us didn’t want to have the conversation,” Delany told reporters earlier this week. “Now we all want to have the conversation.”

Then on Thursday, the BCS picked up another major endorsement for a potential playoff.

Emmert has long said he expected changes to the BCS system and has repeatedly offered to help the BCS debate if they want it. The NCAA licenses bowl games, but does not run them. It also has no direct authority over the BCS system.

But a small, four-team tournament could be the perfect remedy for what many still consider a flawed system.

“I see a lot of ways that a Final Four model could be successful,” Emmert said.

Read more: http://trade.cc/yud

Comments »

Warren Buffet’s favorite indicator just hit the skids for the first time in many quarters…

Comments »

Despite rampant fraud there are well managed companies to invest in….. 

Comments »

Michele Myers says we have not reached bottom yet….

Comments »

Estimates are to break last years record of 401 plant closings….

Comments »

Remember a loss in this paper according to accounting rules counts as a profit on the books….so buying the paper at a good price does not matter right now.

Full article

Comments »

Full report

Comments »

Let’s QE the markets to 20k plus

Comments »

Full report

Comments »

The Euro is currently @ 1.2672 to the dollar

Comments »

Comments »

FROM THE FINANCIAL TIMES…

Comments »