Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Silver Entered Phase 2 Bull Market
http://goldbasics.blogspot.com/2010/10/silver-entered-phase-2-bull-market.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FDVTI+%28Gold+%26+Silver%29&utm_content=FaceBook
I'm watching silver run like crazy in overseas trading tonight. It's either some heavy duty short covering by JP Morgan and friends or it's a mad rush to get into silver or it's a blow off top. We'll find out which one it is either tomorrow or in the next few days.
http://www.citywire.co.uk/money/silver-price-manipulation-public-deserves-answers/a437169?ref=citywire-money-featured-articles-list
Silver price manipulation: 'public deserves answers'
by Rob Mackinlay on Oct 08, 2010 at 00:01
US regulators have been urged to reveal the results of a two-year-long investigation into silver and gold price manipulation allegations. The findings are keenly awaited by investors and organisations who have been making allegations about silver and gold price manipulation for decades.
The investigation was based on a claim that large traders, like banks, had been selling huge amounts of silver on the futures market to keep prices down. A substantial short position - believed to be equivalent to 25% of the annual global mining supply of silver - was exposed during the financial crisis.
Bart Chilton, a commissioner at the US Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which is investigating the claims, said: 'I think the public deserves some answers in the very near future.'
He said: 'I expect the CFTC to say something on our silver investigation within weeks. I can't pre-judge what that will be. I can't even guarantee that the agency will speak. That said, if the agency remain silent for much longer, I intend to speak out on the matter in an appropriate fashion.'
Geoffrey Aronow, a former CFTC investigator, told Citywire that there was a chance the investigation could affect silver prices: 'I would say that, generally speaking, results of investigations have not had direct market impacts, but it may depend on whether the Commission concludes that there is any ongoing questionable conduct.'
Ben Davies, chief executive of Hinde Capital, a london-based gold hedge fund manager said that it looked like the activity which had raised the original concerns had stopped and so a direct effect on the price of silver was unlikely.
Back in March 2010 Chilton suggested that CFTC investigators had made significant discoveries: 'We have looked at the silver market like we have never before and I think there is a window of success that has been opened for understanding about what has been going on and why.'
In the statement he said this was the first full investigation into the silver market since 1979 when the Hunt brothers cornered the market and the silver price spiked.
Until 2008 the CFTC believed that these allegations were groundless, a view still held by some gold experts.
However the product manager of ZKB's physical gold exchange traded fund, suggested that concerns about the global gold and silver markets had motivated significant investments. He said that clients liked the Switzerland-based ZKB ETF because ZKB was the product's sole market maker which minimised reliance on global gold markets.
I'm enjoying the run as everyone else is. The company is heading in the right direction. Silver is heading in the right direction. As I indicated back in the doldrums of summer, September is historically the best seasonal period for gold. So to see the run in September isn't surprising. If trends follow patterns, there may be a bit of a correction in October followed by another run to new highs at the end of the year. I always get the most skittish in the spring, where we've seen some of the biggest collapses in the past decade.
One thing I haven't heard talked about much is the massive short position held by those evil banks, especially JP Morgan. From what I've read their short positions are at record highs. They've got to be feeling the heat right now. I'm wondering how much of the action in precious metals lately is short covering? Or how much is central bank accumulation?
The stock market is surprising me. This Quantitative Easing talk is sending all asset classes on a run. The economy doesn't seem to support any of this with weak growth all over.
Everything is really contingent on the dollar. The dollar index is now approaching important technical support around 76, and if it goes below that, to the 2008 lows around 70. If you want to guess the direction of gold, silver and USSIF, watch what the dollar does. If it bounces off these technical levels and heads higher, all the action of the last month could reverse and we could go back into a deflationary move. Then the expectation is that the Fed would save the day with QA. But if the dollar index continues its slide below, 76, and even through its 2008 low of 70, man that could set off a potential collapse in the dollar and move us a long way towards the inflationary cataclysm many doom and gloomers have been predicting for a while.
The markets act in very unpredictable ways. And the powers that be, namely the Fed, have a lot of tools of manipulation up their sleeves. So it's anyone's guess what will happen next. That's why I never get quite as giddy as many do on these stock message boards. The profits we hold today could all disappear in a heartbeat, or they could multiply even more. That's what makes it all so exhilarating in positive and negative ways.
Nice day. This stock was waiting for some visibility. I'm holding out for substantially higher prices. US Silver could be a potential buy-out target at some point.
As a sidenote, I get a kick out of these aberrant trades. The daily low is $.01. I wonder if someone put in a sell order at market and somehow got filled at a penny.
I am seeing so many varied opinions on where precious metals are going in the near-term from analysts I respect. Ashraf Laidi, who is one of the best currency analysts is very bullish gold right now.
http://www.ashraflaidi.com/articles/the-qe-case-for-gold-silver.asp
Several gold analysts with top-notch track records are predicting substantially higher levels by the end of the year.
http://goldnews.bullionvault.com/gold_price_090120104
And then there are the technically oriented analysts who see the triple top and major correction coming.
http://www.thegoldandoilguy.com/articles/precious-metals-equity-index-forms-a-triple-top-what%E2%80%99s-next/
We are at a major inflection point right here and now.
Both gold and silver are bucking up against some real tough resistance areas. Gold's all-time high of $1265 is presenting some challenges getting through and silver breaking through $20 bucks is tough as well.
If we're going to continue to see more short term gains with this stock, we've got to see gold and silver break through these resistance areas. If they keep on failing, we could head back down at least temporarily before the next try. I'd much rather they just get it over with already.
Thank you Elmer Phud. You saved me a few minutes of internet research to refute the same.
I can't resist a political response when a point was made which needs clarification. Yes Clinton was in charge when Glass Steagall was repealed. Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner all favored the repeal. Pox on all their houses. But for you to tell me it was the Democrats that did it, that is a total stretch. The reality is that Republicans had been wanting to repeal Glass Steagall for decades. Which of the two parties most represents the interests of big business and the banks? If you are telling me the Democrats, you are flat out fibbing. And which of the two parties implemented financial reforms, which while watered down, at least will chip away at the profits (like proprietary trading) that corrupt firms like JP Morgan participate in? The answer is the Democrats passed this legislation with less than a handful of Republicans. The truth is the Republicans have the backs of the big banks and corporations, while the Democrats have the backs of the unions. Both do damage, but I will argue that the Republicans have done far more damage and the evidence is in the 2008 financial crisis.
The stock is looking great. Looks like the beginning of a break-out move. Maybe there is some positive news coming that we don't know about.
I do remain nervous about the action in gold. Gold is trading for the third time right up against it's all-time high. It's been rejected up here two times. The technician I follow, Tom O'Brien, believes gold is experiencing a triple top and is ready to come right back down the other side.
We are in the best seasonal month of the year for gold- September. So gold should have some tail-winds giving it that extra nudge up. I'm not selling a thing, but I do want to see gold break through to all-time highs with some big volume, to take us on to new horizons. If gold fails up here again, it could get ugly for both gold and silver in the short term. Long term I remain very confident.
It's hard not to interject politics here at all, but the story below is all about the financial regulation reform bill passed by the Democrats and Obama. The Republicans voted almost unanimously with JP Morgan and the banks. If silver all of a sudden takes a ride skyward, you should send a campaign contribution to your local Democratic Congressmen.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/38938725
JPMorgan Shutting Commodities Prop Trading in London
Published: Tuesday, 31 Aug 2010
CNBC.com
JP Morgan recently informed a London team of commodities prop traders that they may be let go, according to people familiar with the matter.
JP Morgan Chase has notified commodities traders in London that they’ll soon be out of a job, joining a slew of U.S. financial firms that are cutting proprietary-trading divisions because of recent regulatory reforms.
The firm recently informed a group of less than 20 commodities prop traders—who trade for the firm’s own benefit—that their positions are “at risk,” said a person familiar with the matter. The traders can apply for other posts within JP Morgan, this person said, but their current jobs will likely be eliminated within two months.
JP Morgan’s [JPM 36.36 0.51 (+1.42%) ] move is the first in a series of expected cuts to its prop-trading business, which numbers roughly 100 people and accounts for less than 1% of annual revenue, according to people familiar with the matter.
Under the recently-passed “Volcker rule” provision of the Dodd-Frank Act, U.S. banks must curb their prop-trading activities as well as reduce their investments in private equity and hedge funds to minimal levels.
While the rule may take years to be fully interpreted and implemented, some banks have made moves to comply early.
Goldman Sachs [GS 136.93 0.27 (+0.2%) ], for instance, is currently in discussions with traders in its equity-division prop group, known as Goldman Sachs Principal Strategies, about spinning out the unit as an independent hedge fund, say people familiar with the matter. And Morgan Stanley [MS 24.69 0.26 (+1.06%) ] is in discussions with Process Driven Trading, its internal quant prop desk, about how to part ways, say other people familiar with the matter.
© 2010 CNBC.com
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=52883596
So far precious metals are holding up pretty well considering the slide in the stock market that has who knows how much further to fall.
Put me down for a prediction that this week may mark the end of the cyclical bull move for the stock market. I think stocks are heading down the other side. My hope is that they don't take precious metals with them. We'll see.
Seasonal weakness for gold can run another couple weeks. Tom O'Brien, the technical trader I spoke of earlier, is looking at a potential downside target of $1074 before looking to go long. Before then, we have the 200 day moving average of around $1140 that may provide some support. I still haven't sold a thing even though I warned folks that this correction was coming. I'm still looking for strength and new highs beginning probably late August, into September. My predictions for the stock market haven't been as fortuitous, but Tom O'Brien is also looking for a nasty correction in the stock market in the coming weeks. I've learned to take Tom O'Brien's predictions very seriously.
Seasonal weakness for gold can run another couple weeks. Tom O'Brien, the technical trader I spoke of earlier, is looking at a potential target of $1074 as his downside target before looking to go long. Before then, we have the 200 day moving average of around $1140 that may provide some support. I still haven't sold a thing even though I warned folks that this correction was coming. I'm still looking for strength and new highs beginning probably late August, into September.
We continue to be in the weakest seasonal period for gold, which is July and August. Let's revisit the price of gold and silver two months from now and we'll see where we're trading.
I take predictions like these in stride, although if all heck breaks loose, there is no telling how high PMs go.
Silver's Historical Correlation with Gold Suggests A Parabolic Top As High As $714 per Ounce!
By: Lorimer Wilson | Mon, Jul 12, 2010
http://www.safehaven.com/article/17461/silvers-historical-correlation-with-gold-suggests-a-parabolic-top-as-high-as-714-per-ounce
Done.
<<Gee permabear, you follow the eco-terrorists religion and Elmer and I don't.>>
Basically what you're saying is that you reject modern science. That's your point. Skeptics of the past continued to believe the earth was flat or that human beings first stepped on the planet some 6,000 years ago. My choice is to accept what the smartest people who study this issue 24/7 are telling me. What they are saying is that I am right and you are wrong. I side with the scientists. You side with the right wing ideologues.
Latest scientific findings just reinforce all of the concerns about global warming:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100615_globalstats.html
NOAA: May Global Temperature is Warmest on Record
Spring and January-May also post record breaking temps
June 15, 2010
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for May, March-May (Northern Hemisphere spring-Southern Hemisphere autumn), and the period January-May according to NOAA. Worldwide average land surface temperature for May and March-May was the warmest on record while the global ocean surface temperatures for both May and March-May were second warmest on record, behind 1998.
The monthly analysis from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, which is based on records going back to 1880, is part of the suite of climate services NOAA provides government, business and community leaders so they can make informed decisions.
continued...
Elmer and Clownsj,
The climate scientists take all these various factors into account when they do their research. You have to insinuate a malicious motive to say these people come into their research with a particular political viewpoint and political agenda in mind. That's not how science works. Regardless of political bias, when objective research is conducted, it proves hypotheses by testing them through the scientific method which is as objective as can be. If there are holes in the science, they will be uncovered by further research which either confirms or refutes the research.
All of the factors that skeptics are concerned about (influence of solar factors, various methods of testing global temperatures, etc.) are taken into account when these climate scientists test their theories and conduct their research. If there were holes in the research, I assure you they would be on the front pages of every newspaper in the world. The only holes that the skeptics have been able to come up with are email communications between colleagues who have griped about this or that, and at the very worst, indicate they haven't been as transparent as they should have been. When investigations have been conducted into the controversy of "climategate", the science itself was found to be as solid and sound as ever, and nothing has changed in the consensus view of climate change.
<<I agree he is wrong... but disagree that his argument is rational or even close to valid. In fact, it isn't an argument at all, but an exhortation to reliance on faith.
He's not arguing the science. He's arguing who an individual should trust in lieu of a scientific background. Can you blame him?>>
Fair and objective assessment of my opinion Elmer. I admit I'm not a scientist and I'm not going to begin to debate the nitty gritty details with people with a scientific background who clearly have more knowledge of the nitty gritty of the details. Nevertheless, I will continue to argue that the deniers are off base because no matter how much scientific background those here say they have, they don't come anywhere close to the 95 percent of climate scientists, mostly Ph.D.s who study this stuff for a living. There really and truly is no debate among the climate scientists. There is no debate among the major scientific journals, Science, Scientific American, etc. etc. To these people the issue has been studied to death with thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed research and the research has come to a conclusion that is beyond reproach. Human activity, through burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to climate change. And that change is reflected in very strong empirical evidence of rising global temperatures, rising sea levels and changes in the chemistry of the ocean, that can only be explained by the empirically proven increase in CO2 in the atmosphere that has empirically been proven to be caused by the burning of fossil fuels since the industrial revolution.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703636404575352623519599344.html
JULY 8, 2010
Report Backs Climate Data, Scolds Scientists
U.K. Inquiry Concludes Researchers Didn't Skew Findings, but Says They Failed to Display a 'Proper Degree of Openness'
By JEFFREY BALL And GUY CHAZAN
A U.K. investigation concluded Wednesday that researchers at a prominent climate-change institute didn't skew science to inflate evidence of man-made global warming, but it criticized them for not sharing data and, in one instance, for presenting information in a "misleading" way.
The report is the third and largest in recent months to reach the complex conclusion about the conduct of climate scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the U.K.'s University of East Anglia.
Taken together, the reports are in line with the 2007 conclusion by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that global warming is "unequivocal" and is "very likely" caused by human activity. But the reports collectively warn climate scientists to be more transparent in responding to critics and in explaining their methods. The latest report also notes that it isn't assessing climate science broadly.
continued...
I don't think we'll see the real substantial rises in gold or silver until around September. The seasonal factors have been pretty consistent over the years. We are now in the weakest season for gold and silver with low demand in India and elsewhere. Come September it will be a whole different ballgame, and we'll be looking at plus $1500 gold by the end of the year.
Elmer,
You keep referring to me when you should be referring to the established scientific community which you are so out of step with. My views reflect modern scientific understanding of climate change. I am only repeating what the scientists say in all the scientific journals and through the large scientific organizations. You are parroting the anti science deniers. They are the political ones. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, good company you are in while the National Academy of Sciences and Scientific American I share company with. Compare the sources to see who has more legitimacy.
<<The overly urgent appeals to authority on the part of the global warming hoaxers look to me a lot like the Catholic Church needing to discredit Galileo to make sure that they reinforce the message that it is FACT that the earth is the center of the solar system.>>
No Downsideup and all the other deniers here, the comparison with the Catholic Church isn't with all the scientists, it is with right wing ideologues like yourselves who deny the science. It's not like they invented climate change out of the blue. Climate change science comes from thousands of peer reviewed scientific experiments and research studies. This research has found increases in global temperatures, rises in sea levels and changes in ocean chemistry that can only be explained by one phenomenon- burning of fossil fuels. All the other factors have been studied and proven not to produce the changes seen.
Like I said it is you folks who live in denial. Even Exxon Mobil, which used to surreptitiously fund climate deniers, publicly accept the climate change science. There is not a single organization or big corporation that challenges the science. If the science was so bad, why isn't Exxon or others prove it. The fact is they can't. That's why they have all come around to accept the consensus. http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_impact.aspx Only the right wing ideologues, scientists with questionable motivations and anti science folks are left to challenge the consensus. History will not be kind to the deniers because the evidence is building in our lifetimes that will be beyond question.
So here you are discrediting the climate scientists who study this stuff for a living. You are suggesting that scientific organizations with the highest reputations in the world, have sold their souls for money. Now are you willing to tell me that Factcheck.org is in on the conspiracy as well? If you choose ideology over modern science, that is your choice. History will judge you no better than the ideologues of the past who rejected evolution and every other scientific advancement in history.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
“Climategate”
Hacked e-mails show climate scientists in a bad light but don't change scientific consensus on global warming.
December 10, 2009
Summary
In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded:
The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.
Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.
E-mails being cited as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to "hiding the decline" isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The "decline" actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.
Analysis
Skeptics claim this trove of e-mails shows the scientists at the U.K. research center were engaging in evidence-tampering, and they are portraying the affair as a major scandal: "Climategate." Saudi Arabian climate negotiator Mohammad Al-Sabban went so far as to tell the BBC: "It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change." He said that he expected news of the e-mails to disrupt the U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen this month. An article from the conservative-leaning Canada Free Press claims that the stolen files are proof of a "deliberate fraud" and "the greatest deception in history."
Missing the Mark
We find such claims to be far wide of the mark. The e-mails (which have been made available by an unidentified individual here) do show a few scientists talking frankly among themselves — sometimes being rude, dismissive, insular, or even behaving like jerks. Whether they show anything beyond that is still in doubt. An investigation is being conducted by East Anglia University, and the head of CRU, Phil Jones, has "stepped aside" until it is completed. However, many of the e-mails that are being held up as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented by global-warming skeptics eager to find evidence of a conspiracy. And even if they showed what the critics claim, there remains ample evidence that the earth is getting warmer.
Even as the affair was unfolding, the World Meteorological Organization announced on Dec. 8 that the 2000-2009 decade would likely be the warmest on record, and that 2009 might be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. (The hottest year on record was 1998.) This conclusion is based not only on the CRU data that critics are now questioning, but also incorporates data from the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). All three organizations synthesized data from many sources.
Some critics claim that the e-mails invalidate the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world scientific body that reaffirmed in a 2007 report that the earth is warming, sea levels are rising and that human activity is "very likely" the cause of "most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century." But the IPCC’s 2007 report, its most recent synthesis of scientific findings from around the globe, incorporates data from three working groups, each of which made use of data from a huge number of sources — of which CRU was only one. The synthesis report notes key disagreements and uncertainties but makes the "robust" conclusion that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal." (A robust finding is defined as "one that holds under a variety of approaches, methods, models and assumptions, and is expected to be relatively unaffected by uncertainties.")
The IPCC has released a statement playing down the notion that CRU scientists skewed the world body’s report or kept it from considering the views of skeptical scientists:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: The entire report writing process of the IPCC is subjected to extensive and repeated review by experts as well as governments. Consequently, there is at every stage full opportunity for experts in the field to draw attention to any piece of literature and its basic findings that would ensure inclusion of a wide range of views. There is, therefore, no possibility of exclusion of any contrarian views, if they have been published in established journals or other publications which are peer reviewed.
The facts support this assertion. In one 2004 e-mail that’s come under much scrutiny, Jones wrote of two controversial papers that "Kevin and I will keep them out [of the IPCC report] somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" But both papers under discussion, Kalnay and Cai (2003) and McKitrick and Michaels (2004), were cited in one of the three working group reports from which the 2007 IPCC report is synthesized.
Mixed Messages
The 1,000-plus e-mails sometimes illustrate the hairier side of scientific research. Criticisms of climate change are sometimes dismissed as "fraud" or "pure crap," as in this 2005 e-mail from CRU Director Phil Jones. Other messages, like a 2007 e-mail from Michael Mann of Penn State University, show indignation at being the target of skeptics’ ire. Some of the e-mails are in bad form; for instance, climate scientist Benjamin Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory makes a crack about "beat[ing] the crap out of" opponent Pat Michaels.
Claims that the e-mails are evidence of fraud or deceit, however, misrepresent what they actually say. A prime example is a 1999 e-mail from Jones, who wrote: "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." Skeptics claim the words "trick" and "decline" show Jones is using sneaky manipulations to mask a decline in global temperatures. But that’s not the case. Actual temperatures, as measured by scientific instruments such as thermometers, were rising at the time of the writing of this decade-old e-mail, and (as we’ve noted) have continued to rise since then. Jones was referring to the decline in temperatures implied by measurements of the width and density of tree rings. In recent decades, these measures indicate a dip, while more accurate instrument-measured temperatures continue to rise.
Scientists at CRU use tree-ring data and other "proxy" measurements to estimate temperatures from times before instrumental temperature data began to be collected. However, since about 1960, tree-ring data have diverged from actual measured temperatures. Far from covering it up, CRU scientists and others have published reports of this divergence many times. The "trick" that Jones was writing about in his 1999 e-mail was simply adding the actual, measured instrumental data into a graph of historic temperatures. Jones says it’s a “trick” in the colloquial sense of an adroit feat — "a clever thing to do," as he put it — not a deception. What’s hidden is the fact that tree-ring data in recent decades doesn’t track with thermometer measurements. East Anglia Research Professor Andrew Watson explained in an article in The Times of London:
Watson: Jones is talking about a line on a graph for the cover of a World Meteorological Organisation report, published in 2000, which shows the results of different attempts to reconstruct temperature over the past 1,000 years. The line represents one particular attempt, using tree-ring data for temperature. The method agrees with actual measurements before about 1960, but diverges from them after that — for reasons only partly understood, discussed in the literature.
Other quotes that skeptics say are evidence of "data manipulation" actually refer to how numbers are presented, not to falsifying those numbers. For instance, in one e-mail climate scientist Tom Crowley writes: "I have been fiddling with the best way to illustrate the stable nature of the medieval warm period." Crowley is referring to the best way to translate the data into a graphic format. We’re the first to admit that charts and graphs can give a false or misleading impression of what data actually show. In the past, for instance, we’ve criticized a pie chart used by some liberals to make military spending look like a much larger slice of the federal budget than it really is. In fact, it’s been a major contention of climate change skeptics that a so-called "hockey stick" chart, so named because it shows a steep climb in temperatures in the last few decades, exaggerates the true extent of warming. That claim is contradicted by climate scientists, including the creator of one of the most contended "hockey stick" charts, and we make no judgment about that dispute here. We simply note that "fiddling" with the way data are displayed — even in a way that some may see as misleading — is not the same thing as falsifying the numbers.
Much has also been made of the scientists’ discussion of Freedom of Information Act requests for their raw data. In fact, the vast majority of CRU’s data is already freely available. According to the University of East Anglia, a small amount of the data is restricted by non-publication agreements. Discussion of British FOIA requests in the stolen e-mails show scientists bristling at demands that they supply records of their own correspondence, computer code and data to people whose motives they question. In one e-mail about a request for data and correspondence, Santer writes critically of Steven McIntyre, a Canadian science blogger who runs the Climateaudit.org Web site:
Ben Santer e-mail, Nov. 12, 2009: My personal opinion is that both FOI requests [for data related to a 2008 paper and for correspondence dating back to 2006] are intrusive and unreasonable. Steven McIntyre provides absolutely no scientific justification or explanation for such requests. … McIntyre has no interest in improving our scientific understanding of the nature and causes of climate change. He has no interest in rational scientific discourse. He deals in the currency of threats and intimidation. We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues.
It’s clear from the e-mails that there are people with whom the scientists would rather not share. What’s less clear is whether any deliberate obstruction actually occurred — that’s one of the subjects of the East Anglia investigation. Some e-mails refer to long discussions with lawyers and university officials about what the scientists may, or must, make available and to whom. In others, scientists let their critics know directly that data are freely accessible, or mention that they’ve already sent the information along, though they may not fulfill their opponents’ every informational wish.
Climate change skeptics also say that the e-mails prove they’ve been excluded from peer review. In one e-mail, for example, climate scientist Tom Wigley of the University Corporation for Academic Research writes: "If you think that [Yale professor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." Saiers later departed from the journal in question (Geophysical Research Letters, or GRL). However, Saiers says he isn’t a warming skeptic and that Wigley had nothing to do with his departure. When another professor (and blogger) asked Saiers about the Wigley e-mail, Saiers responded: "I stepped down as GRL editor at the end of my three-year term. … My departure had nothing to do with attempts by Wigley or anyone else to have me sacked."
Investigators are still sifting through 13 years’ worth of CRU e-mails looking for evidence of impropriety. But what’s been revealed so far hasn’t shaken the broad scientific consensus about global warming. In an open letter to Congress posted on Climate Science Watch and other sites, 25 leading climate scientists (including eight members of the National Academy of Science) wrote:
Letter to Congress from U.S. scientists, Dec. 4: The body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming. The content of the stolen emails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming. … Even without including analyses from the UK research center from which the emails were stolen, the body of evidence underlying our understanding of human-caused global warming remains robust.
Confusing the Public
News coverage of the e-mails and the various claims about what they supposedly show may have contributed to public confusion on the subject. A Dec. 3 Rasmussen survey found that only 25 percent of adults surveyed said that "most scientists agree on global warming" while 52 percent said that "there is significant disagreement within the scientific community" and 23 percent said they were not sure. The truth is that over the 13 years covered by the CRU e-mails, scientific consensus has only become stronger as the evidence for global warming from various sources has mounted. Reports from the National Academies and the U.S. Global Change Research Program that analyze large amounts of data from various sources also agree, as does the IPCC, that climate change is not in doubt. In advance of the 2009 U.N. climate change summit, the national academies of 13 nations issued a joint statement of their recommendations for combating climate change, in which they discussed the "human forcing" of global warming and said that the need for action was "indisputable."
Leading scientists are unequivocally reaffirming the consensus on global warming in the wake of "Climategate." White House science adviser John Holdren said at a congressional hearing on climate change: "However this particular controversy comes out, the result will not call into question the bulk of our understanding of how the climate works or how humans are affecting it." The American Association for the Advancement of Science released a statement "reaffirm[ing] the position of its Board of Directors and the leaders of 18 respected organizations, who concluded based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway, and it is a growing threat to society." The American Meteorological Society and the Union of Concerned Scientists have also reiterated their positions on climate change, which they say are unaffected by the leaked e-mails.
– by Jess Henig
What you are all saying is that the climate scientists, who study this stuff for a living, are all playing politics and are in it for the money. Unless you feel all these climate scientists have no integrity whatsoever, your view is totally ridiculous. All these prestigious scientific organizations, are all willing to put their lofty reputations on the line because they are in it for money???
As for the controversy over the data, Climategate as its called, that story was so overblown it was pathetic. The findings remain as legitimate as ever. Anytime you want to take private emails of anyone communicating amongst themselves, sure you can pick and choose statements that look controversial. The bottom line is that the science remains rock solid. And that's why all the most prestigious scientific organizations in the world stand behind it.
My credentials are as irrelevant as Al Gore's credentials when it comes to scientific background. All Al Gore does, as I have been doing is to repeat what the scientists are saying. I am reflecting the viewpoint of Scientific American. Do you have more scientific knowledge or credentials than the scientists who write and edit Scientific American, one of the most reputable science magazines in the business?
Neither you nor I are experts on the climate. But is the National Academy of Sciences? How about NASA? Or perhaps the American Meteorological Society? Or how about the American Geophysical Union? Or the American Institute of Physics? Do you also question their credentials?
Now that I've come up with a list of organizations that strongly and vociferously support climate change science, I challenge all skeptics here to come up with one reputable scientific organization, just one, one and only one, that refutes climate change science. Research it all you won't. You won't find one I assure you.
You can discount my point of view all you want. My point of view represents the views of the scientific community. To the established scientific community the issue is settled, and as this article in Scientific American points out, those who continue to deny what has been proven are basically out to lunch. This one article summarizes and answers just about all the critiques that have been articulated here and elsewhere about climate change. The science is strong. Only those with a right wing political agenda refuse to open their minds to it. I encourage all the skeptics here to actually read the article and try to be open minded to its message.
November 30, 2009
Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense
Evidence for human interference with Earth's climate continues to accumulate
By John Rennie
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense
Really it is only in the world of the right wing media where there is questioning of the science of climate change. Listen to Fox news or Sean Hannity and sure there's a lot of doubt. Read scientific journals and there is practically zero doubt. If you want to get your science from Fox News or right wing radio, that is your prerogative. I would rather get my science news from the source, the scientists themselves. There is very strong consensus on this issue among the scientists who study climate change. There are only really a few fringe climate change scientists who question the basic ideas of human activity causing climate change. And as I pointed out there are zero established scientific organizations on the side of the deniers. Zero!!!
<<You are doing my job for me. Clearly there is disagreement across the Scientific community. That's the point.>>
No you're missing the point. There really isn't a lot of disagreement in the scientific community on the contribution of human activity to climate change. The scientific community has reached a strong consensus, as is represented in the information published by the National Academy of Sciences, NASA an numerous other scientific sources.
http://dels-old.nas.edu/climatechange/
Sure you can come up with a few crackpot scientists. In most cases these folks have a lot of baggage and often hidden motivations for taking the positions they do (like support of organizations like Exxon for example).
There may be a lot of debate about how severe debate climate change will be. But in the established scientific community there is very little debate about whether climate change is happening and whether it is primarily the result of human activity.
If you want to reject modern science, that's your choice. But history will judge you the same as those who rejected evolution and going back further, whether the earth was flat or round.
No I'm just showing you that you are on the wrong side of this debate. When the subject first came up all I saw was a piling on Al Gore and how climate change was some sort of hoax and conspiracy. All I've done here is shown that climate change science is mainstream. When more than 95 percent of climate scientists and every single established scientific organization around agree on something, I'd say the science is pretty solid. Climate change denial is politics. If there is a scientist or scientific organization around that can prove it's a hoax, more power to them. But thus far all the science is saying one thing- it's the real deal. And that's why the scientists who actually study the issue for a living are almost universally in support of the climate change as a human caused problem that has severe consequences for the earth's and human beings' future.
To me climate change denial is anti science. Some of the same people in the climate change denial effort are the same organizations and even individual scientists who were involved in the smoking doesn't cause lung cancer effort. And we know how that one ended. Richard Lindzen, one of the leading scientific climate change deniers is a a shining example.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html
Kevin Grandia
Posted: July 22, 2009 04:47 PM
The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda
I thought it would be timely to once again break down this flawed piece of global warming denier propaganda after it was mentioned last night in Daily Show host Jon Stewart's interview with US Energy Secretary of Energy, Dr. Stephen Chu.
.1% of Signers Have a Background in Climatology
The Petition Project website offers a breakdown of the areas of expertise of those who have signed the petition.
In the realm of climate science it breaks it breaks down as such:
Atmospheric Science (113)
Climatology (39)
Meteorology (341)
Astronomy (59)
Astrophysics (26)
So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair, we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%.
The page does not break out the names of those who do claim to be experts in Climatology and Atmospheric Science, which makes even that .5% questionable [see my section on "unverifiable mess" below].
This makes an already questionable list seem completely insignificant given the nature of scientific endeavor.
When I think I'm having chest pains I don't go to the dermatologist, I go to a cardiologist because it would be absurd to go to skin doctor for a heart problem. It would be equally absurd to look to a scientist with a background in medicine (of which there are 3,046 on the petition) for an expert opinion on the science of climate change. With science broken down into very narrow specialties a scientific expert in one specialty does not make that person an automatic authority in all things science.
In this way the logic of the 30,000 petition is completely flawed, which isn't surprising given its questionable beginnings.
2009-07-22-oregoninstituteheadquarters.jpg
The Petition's Sordid Beginnings
The petition first emerged in April 1998 and was organized by Art Robinson of the self-proclaimed "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" (OISM) [their headquarters are the Photo Inset].
Along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, Robinson's group co-published the infamous "Oregon Petition" claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.
The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren't, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.
Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz (who has since died), a notorious climate change denier (and big tobacco scientist) who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science.
Also attached to the petition was an apparent "research paper" titled Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy's prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal. The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson's son Zachary. With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression.
The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."
An Unverifiable Mess
Time and time again, I have had emails from researchers who have taken random samples of names from the list and Google searched them for more information. I urge others to do the same. What you'll quickly find is either no information, very little information or information substantiating the fact that the vast majority of signers are completely unqualified in the area of climate change science.
For example,
"Munawwar M. Akhtar" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
"Fred A. Allehoff" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
"Ernest J. Andberg" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
"Joseph J. Arx" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
"Adolph L. Amundson" - a paper by Amundson on the "London Tunnel Water Treatment System Acid Mine Drainage." [PDF]
"Henry W. Apfelbach" - an Orthopedic Surgeon
"Joe R. Arechavaleta" - runs an Architect and Engineering company.
And this is only names I picked in the "A's." I could go on, but you get my point. The list is very difficult to verify as a third-party, but this hasn't stopped the Petition from bouncing around the internet and showing up in mainstream media.
Given all this it seems to me that anyone touting this as proof that "global warming is a hoax" completely misunderstands the process of scientific endeavor or has completely exhausted any real argument that rightfully brings into to doubt the reality of climate change.
Or, then again, they could just be in it for the money.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/38092759
Dow Repeats Great Depression Pattern: Charts
Published: Monday, 5 Jul 2010 | 5:31 AM ET
The Dow Jones Industrial Average is repeating a pattern that appeared just before markets fell during the Great Depression, Daryl Guppy, CEO at Guppytraders.com, told CNBC Monday.
“Those who don’t remember history are doomed to repeat it…there was a head and shoulders pattern that developed before the Depression in 1929, then with the recovery in 1930 we had another head and shoulders pattern that preceded a fall in the market, and in the current Dow situation we see an exact repeat of that environment,” Guppy said.
The Dow retreated 457.33 points, or 4.5 percent last week, to close at 9,686 Friday. Guppy said a Dow fall below 9,800 confirmed the head and shoulders pattern.
The Shanghai Composite is seeing a very rapid collapse, falling below 2,500, which suggests the major fall in the Dow, he added.
In the European markets, Guppy says Frankfurt's Dax is witnessing a different pattern to London's FTSE.
Guppy uses the broad trading band as measurement- giving the Dax a downsize target of 1,500. The same head and shoulders pattern seen in the Dow can also being seen in the FTSE, he added.
Science is on my side in this debate. Organizations that support my point of view include the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, the EPA under both the Obama and Bush administration, every major science journal out there including Science, Scientific American, you name the science magazine or journal and I assure you they support my position not yours.
As for consensus, it's about as powerful as can be in the scientific world. There are always a few fringe scientists out there disputing a recognized finding, and these fringers get a lot of attention in the right wing media and right wing research organizations like the American Enterprise Institute. But the reality is that every single established scientific organization out there either actively supports and advocates the climate change science or at the least has remained neutral. There are zero established scientific organizations that are currently actively disputing climate change science. Zero. Only a few fringers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Scientific opinion on climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
This article is about scientific opinion on climate change. For recent climate change generally, see Global warming. For debate on scientific consensus, see Climate change consensus. For opinions of individual dissenting scientists, see List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.
Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. This does not include the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists adopted its current position in 2007.[2][3] Some organisations hold non-committal positions.
continued...
No what is destroying America is our trade and budget deficits. The U.S. is exporting our wealth to oil producing nations by buying hundreds of billions of dollars of oil every year to feed our oil addiction. We are also exporting our wealth to China because we have let them manipulate their currency and import all of our manufacturing jobs.
When you folks say that climate change is all a scam, are you telling me that the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, and all these other prestigious science organizations are all willing to put their reputations on the line by supporting a theory that in time will have been proven a hoax. No the real hoax is all the suckers who buy into the right wing propaganda of ignorants like Rush Limbaugh who put their ideology over science. Climate change is being studied more than just about any other scientific issue of our time and the conclusion of the scientists is that climate change is a real problem caused by human burning of fossil fuels putting hundreds of thousands of years of carbon into our atmosphere messing with natural processes.
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_15437176?source=rss
Report: Oceans' deteriorating health nearing 'irreversible' `
By Les Blumenthal
McClatchy Newspapers
Posted: 07/03/2010 07:42:27 PM PDT
Updated: 07/03/2010 09:15:47 PM PDT
WASHINGTON — A sobering new report warns that oceans face a "fundamental and irreversible ecological transformation" not seen in millions of years as greenhouse gases and climate change already have affected temperature, acidity, sea and oxygen levels, the food chain and possibly major currents that could alter global weather.
The report, in Science magazine, doesn't break a lot of new ground, but it brings together dozens of studies that collectively paint a dismal picture of deteriorating ocean health.
"This is further evidence we are well on our way to the next great extinction event," said Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, director of the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland in Australia and a co-author of the report.
John Bruno, an associate professor of marine sciences at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the report's other co-author, isn't quite as alarmist, but he's equally concerned.
"We are becoming increasingly certain that the world's marine ecosystems are reaching tipping points," Bruno said, adding, "We really have no power or model to foresee" the impact.
continued...
I'm not a fan of cap and trade. I'd be much more in favor of a simpler carbon tax. One of the big problems the U.S. has is that our gas prices are too cheap. We spend some $3.00 per gallon on gasoline while the rest of the industrialized world spends two to three times that because they tax the gasoline. If gas cost more, we would be more efficient, buy more fuel efficient cars and transition to renewable energy faster.
My view is that it is a win win for the U.S. to get away from the use of oil, not only to help climate change but also to help the U.S. economy. The U.S. has about 5 percent of the world's oil reserves and we use 25 percent of the world's oil. The U.S. is importing $300 billion plus in oil every year. Trade deficits have as much to do with the U.S. economic problems as budget deficits do. We are exporting our wealth and prosperity not only to China because they undervalue their currency and game the trade system, but also to the Middle East because we are so dependent on foreign oil.
In regards to climate change, like I said the scientists are the experts on this issue, and 95 percent of the climate scientists, who study this stuff for a living, say we've got a big problem. We are already seeing the effects of climate change through rising global temperatures since the start of the industrial revolution, rising sea levels, and acidification of our oceans, which are already beginning to kill off coral reefs and many species of marine life. It's not just all made up by Al Gore. Scientists are reporting these changes every day in scientific journals. If you read mainstream newspapers instead of getting your news from right wing propaganda outlets, you might learn what is happening to the planet as a result of the effects of climate change. Don't take it from me, take it from the National Academy of Sciences:
http://dels-old.nas.edu/climatechange/