
You may want to re-evaluate where you are investing if you are into technology companies which are strongly tied to climate change technologies.
Yep Global Warming seems to be a hoax, or at least lots of the data is apparently faked, highly filtered and not standing up to direct review of the data (assuming that News about the hoax has even reached the New York Times.
While it may be possible for to ignore outlets such as Fox news, and talk shows on the subject when the articles about the financial impacts start appearing in the Wall Street Journal that is starting to have impact to investors. If that is enough to get your attention, then the lawyers that are lining up to filing suits should. There are suites against NASA Goddard, CRU and others in the works. Most of these have the freedom of information acts as opening salvo's, but it gets much worse than that.
At the heart of all this is what is meant by peer review. Problem appears to be who the "peers" are is a stacked deck. Appears that Phil Jones of the CRU and his colleague Michael Mann of Penn State where controlling who the peers are, and disallowing anyone not of like "opinion." To bad no one has access to the data for independent review, or at least till now. And it seems the warming is do to the books being cooked. To quote Mr Mann from his email "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board." In other words, keep dissent out of the respected journals. When that fails, redefine what constitutes a respected journal to exclude any that publish inconvenient views. For those not familiar these are the groups responsible for the IPCC which is the U.N. To bad such notables as Freeman Dyson , Fred Singer, Ian Plimar, John Coleman, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Henk Tennekes, and others are not considered peers. (A good summary of who all these experts are and their views is here.)
If you believe or not believe in global warming after this, you should still pay attention to the impact of the controversy on Cap and Trade Bill technology investments. It is very big business and huge impact to wealth redistribution if their is global warming. And climatologist are in a lot less demand if not.
If you can't make up your mind, go with energy technology that would still have value even without global warming, it will still have value it there is.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=67b348fd-f431-4b65-9bac-a75157c04f93)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=c5ca6cb8-45ed-4dc8-8102-e9576a8a45e5)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=4cb786b3-f4c8-45ca-bbd7-d01b95572742)