Last week the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published a half-page letter entitled “No Need To Panic About Global Warming” above the center fold of its Opinion page. The letter was signed by 16 prominent scientists and claimed, among other things, “Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now.” Such a stark assertion would be devastating to the consensus on climate change if it were true. But it is not true. Data published by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) show that global warming is real and well-documented:

This year tied 1997 as the 11th warmest year since records began in 1880…This marks the 35th consecutive year, since 1976, that the yearly global temperature was above average. The warmest years on record were 2010 and 2005, which were 0.64°C (1.15°F) above average.

While the NOAA report used selected official data sets, the well-known global warming skeptic Richard Muller initiated the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project to re-examine all available data from around the world. The analysis changed his mind. On October 21, 2011, he summarized his conclusions about the reality of climate change, also in the WSJ, in an article entitled “The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism“:

We discovered that about one-third of the world’s temperature stations have recorded cooling temperatures, and about two-thirds have recorded warming. The two-to-one ratio reflects global warming. The changes at the locations that showed warming were typically between 1-2ºC, much greater than the [official] average of 0.64ºC.

The press needs to be open to all streams of opinion. But we learned from the Iraq War, which was based on faulty arguments about weapons of mass destruction, how important it is for the press to note and contradict statements that are demonstrably false. Is it too much to expect the WSJ to have referred to its own October 21st article? A simple note at the end could have alerted its readers to the questionable nature of the statements in the opinion piece it just published so prominently. Instead, the WSJ appeared to endorse the misleading arguments in the “anti-panic” letter by that very prominence. Is some unhealthy editorial agenda at work here? The future of climate change reporting in the WSJ should allow us to answer that question.

The company plans to file papers with the US money watchdog on Wednesday, in line with the Monetary Times and the Wall Street Journal.

The flotation later this year would raise regarding $10bn, they reported. This would be one in all the most important share sales seen on Wall Street. It would dwarf the $1.9bn raised by Google when it went public in 2004.

It would still, but, be some method short of the $20bn raised by carmaker General Motors in November 2010.

‘Brilliant achievement’ The reports counsel that Morgan Stanley can be the lead underwriter for the sale, with Goldman Sachs additionally expected to be heavily involved.

Rumours of Facebook’s therefore-referred to as initial public providing (IPO) have circulated for many months, and the company has maintained it can not inquire into the topic. The reported valuation would build Facebook one in all the planet’s biggest companies by market capitalisation.

“Facebook a brilliant achievement, however $75-$100bn? Would make Apple look really cheap,” said Rupert Murdoch on Twitter.

The corporate was started by Mark Zuckerberg and fellow students at Harvard University in 2004 and has quickly grown to become one amongst the globe’s most common websites.

source: bbc.co.uk

The Wall Street Journey reports that up next week begin to prepare an Initial Public Offering (IPO) is estimated to be worth USD100 million (Rp911 billion).Similarly, as quoted from ST.

From The Wall Street sources say that Facebook will prepare the files for IPO to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

“The parties Facebook executive is considering to prepare a file IPO next week,” said a source from The Wall Street Journal.

Some earlier news speculated that a Facebook IPO would value reached U.S. $ 100 million (Rp911 billion), making it the largest IPO in the IT world.

Image via Wikipedia

Since I work at The Wall Street Journal, the people I meet often ask me questions as to mislead the economy, such as “Why is it so bad” and “When is it better to go?”. Unfortunately for them, I have no great answer to give. Two reasons: 1) I am not an expert, economist, or even a professional writer who is paid to research and write the economy every day, my colleague, the Wall Street Journal. I’m just a guy who has an alarm goes off an hour before dawn, and spent most of his time reading and looking at what others say, looking in the mood to make sense of all my public / government school education. 2) No one knows when it will be better. Even the best and the brightest are baffled.

Constantly asked “When will it get better?” He also asked me wonder … are things really that bad for most of us, or are simply unable to survive a prolonged recession? My grandfather came of age during the Great Depression, an economic “slowdown” that has lasted, not 3 or 5 years

years, but more than ten years … ends very soon, because the second world war. In these dark economic times of the people who had barely scraping without the government programs that we have today in the form of welfare, social security and unemployment. My grandfather, his parents, and the rest of his generation had to make real sacrifices to imagine that many people today just to put food in their bellies and clothes on his back. Growing up in the ERA took my grandfather in a cheapskate permanently (or so it seemed to me when I was a child), that 50 years later, he fought the waiters more than the discrepancy of a few hundredths of a check restaurant, and has coached Honestly, the age of schooling, how to get the most bang to my buck buffet dinner. This generation, in which the phrase “reduce, reuse, recycle” has been more than a simple call to save the planet, had a way of life.

Fast forward to today. While unemployment continues to sit at a level far too high and there are more Americans face the problems that there have probably been in my life, most of us still have a roof over their heads, food on the table, a smartphone in our pockets, high speed internet, and TV large flat screen with 500 channels in the lounge.

For those of us lucky enough to have a job, what our grandparents think of us spend hundreds of dollars a month just to entertain in the latest gadget, or food, because what we do “is to feel like

cooking “or” do not have time to do lunch tomorrow? “What they think of us make the car payments eternal because we do not want to drive a car that is” old? “What they would like to drive up huge credit card debt to pay for extravagances, and others, does not give us money in our bank accounts, and very little breathing space, if we lose our jobs? And what would they say to us when we come home from our jobs (we are so lucky that is), and complaints of not being “satisfied” or how our careers are not “proceeds as expected “?

You might say something like “back in my day … (blah blah blah)” Even though they generally do not want to hear about the difficulties of the older generations, we must always take seriously the warnings our old, when it comes to money matters. When they were growing, was the survival of the fittest. If we had the bad news at work today, I doubt that many of us would be terribly unfit to survive.

Mike Gavin is an occasional blogger, and producer of “Wall Street Journal This Morning” and “Wall Street Journal this weekend” nationally syndicated radio programs. The views expressed are personal and not necessarily those of Wall Street Journal, is the parent, or affiliate radio stations.

Image via CrunchBase

Among the guests are some of the luminaries of Silicon Valley and close co-founder of Apple Inc., reported the newspaper The Wall Street Journal. The company said the event would be private.

Speech. It was at Stanford University where Steve Jobs gave an emotional speech on June 12, 2005, at the graduation ceremony of the home studio.

In this speech reminds Jobs origin of “unwanted child” who was taken in adoption and that, despite the efforts of his foster parents did not finish college, “one of the best decisions I ever made” (see video).

Stanford. So far there had been answered calls made ​​to The Associated Press at Stanford University, located in the Bay Area of San Francisco, looking for details of the celebration.

For its part, Apple announced that it had planned memorial services open to the public.

Jobs, the mastermind behind popular items like the iPhone and the iPad, died on October 5 at age 56 after years of suffering from pancreatic cancer. A week ago we conducted a small private funeral, said the newspaper.

Tributes. Apple also plans an event on Wednesday to its employees at the company headquarters in Cupertino, California, also in the Bay Area of San Francisco. The event is billed as a celebration of the life of Jobs.

Meanwhile, California Governor Jerry Brown said Sunday as the day of Steve Jobs in California.

In announcing on Saturday the proclamation, the governor wrote that Jobs introduced the products to market “changed the way the world communicates.”

Amazon.com, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, is discussing the proposal with book publishers. These services will provide access to the customer to read all the books that are available by paying an annual fee. The project is referred to as digital libraries.

Cover via Amazon

During this time trying to hook the Amazon.com e-book enthusiasts by producing and selling e-book reader a well-known, Kindle. Kindle Production is based in Seattle allows consumers to read books in digital format. But these books are sold unit price set according to the publisher.

Digital library planned by Amazon.com will allow customers to pay only an annual fee to read a few books at once. Reportedly, Amazon.com promising big payments for digital library project, and Amazon will limit the amount that can read books free every month.

Instead, start

Image via Wikipedia

by making sure you have 35 years of earnings.  People with less than 35 years have zeros computed into their average for every year without income.  If you have some low years in your highest 35 years of earnings, consider working longer to replace old low earning years with high earning years.  Depending on your age, working longer may allow you to retire later, which can also increase your benefit.

Under the current rules, people born in 1938 have a retirement age of 65 years and 2 months.  For people born after 1959, the normal retirement age is 67.  It is possible, however, to start receiving benefits  as early as age 62.  The price for this is that for the first 36 months of early retirement you permanently lose about .56% of your benefit per month. For additional months of early retirement, you lose about .42% per month.

In order to increase Social Security benefits, delay taking Social Security until age 70.  For people turning 62 after 2004, there is an 8% yearly increase in benefits for each year retirement is delayed beyond your normal Social Security retirement date.  That means by working for five more years, your Social Security check could increase 40%.

If your benefit is going to be based on your spouse’s earnings, there are still ways to increase your check.  In general, the lower earning spouse gets a Social Security benefit equal to 50% of their spouse’s benefit.  If you are close to having enough credit to earn your own benefit, however, you may want to see if working a little longer or even picking up a part time job could increase your benefit. 

One of these numbers was zero — the number of jobs created in August. the opposite was two — the interest rate on 10-year U.S. bonds, virtually as low as this rate has ever gone. Taken together, these numbers virtually scream that the inside-the-Beltway crowd has been worrying about the wrong things, and inflicting grievous harm as a result.

Ever since the acute part of the money crisis ended, policy discussion in Washington has been dominated not by unemployment, but by the alleged dangers posed by budget deficits. Pundits and media organizations insisted that the most important risk facing America was the threat that investors would pull the plug on U.S. debt. for instance, in could 2009 The Wall Street Journal declared that the “bond vigilantes” were “returning with a vengeance,” telling readers that the Obama administration’s “epic spending spree” would send interest rates soaring.

The interest rate when that editorial was printed was three.7 percent. As of Friday, as I’ve already mentioned, it was only a pair of percent.

I don’t mean to dismiss issues about the long-run U.S. budget picture. If you examine fiscal prospects over, say, ensuing twenty years, they’re indeed deeply worrying, largely because of rising health-care costs. but the expertise of the past two years has overwhelmingly confirmed what a number of us tried to argue from the beginning: The deficits we’re running straight away — deficits we must always be running, as a result of deficit spending helps support a depressed economy — are not any threat in the least.

And by obsessing over a nonexistent threat, Washington has been creating the real problem — mass unemployment, that is eating away at the foundations of our nation — a lot of worse.

Although you’d never are aware of it being attentive to the ranters, the past year has actually been a pretty sensible take a look at of the speculation that slashing government spending actually creates jobs. The deficit obsession has blocked a much-needed second spherical of federal stimulus, and with stimulus spending, like it was, fading out, we’re experiencing de facto fiscal austerity. State and local governments, above all, faced with the loss of federal aid, have been sharply cutting several programs and have been scraping plenty of employees, largely schoolteachers.

And somehow the non-public sector hasn’t felt these layoffs by rejoicing at the sight of a shrinking government and embarking on a hiring spree.

O.K., i know what the same old suspects will say — namely, that fears of regulation and better taxes are holding businesses back. but this is often just a right-wing fantasy. Multiple surveys have shown that lack of demand — a scarcity that is being exacerbated by government cutbacks — is that the overwhelming problem businesses face, with regulation and taxes barely even within the picture.

For example, when McClatchy Newspapers recently canvassed a random choice of small-business homeowners to search out out what was hurting them, not one one complained about regulation of his or her trade, and few complained a lot of about taxes. And did I mention that profits when taxes, as a share of national income, are at record levels?

So short-run deficits aren’t a problem; lack of demand is, and spending cuts are creating things a lot of worse. perhaps it’s time to alter course?

Which brings me to President Obama’s planned speech on the economy.

I notice it useful to suppose in terms of 3 questions: What should we have a tendency to be doing to create jobs? what will Republicans in Congress agree to? And only if political reality, what should the president propose?

The answer to the first question is that we must always have plenty of job-creating spending on the part of the central, largely within the style of much-needed spending to repair and upgrade the nation’s infrastructure. Oh, and that we want more aid to state and local governments, in order that they’ll stop scraping schoolteachers.

But what will Republicans agree to? That’s easy: nothing. they’ll oppose something Mr. Obama proposes, though it would clearly help the economy — or maybe I should say, particularly if it would help the economy, since high unemployment helps them politically.

This reality makes the third question — what the president should propose — laborious to answer, since nothing he proposes will actually happen anytime soon. so I’m personally ready to cut Mr. Obama plenty of slack on the specifics of his proposal, as long as it’s big and daring. For what he largely must do now could be to alter the conversation — to get Washington talking again about jobs and the way the government will help create them.

For the sake of the nation, and especially for voluminous unemployed Americans who see very little prospect of finding another job, I hope he pulls it off.

    Basically we’ve been living in a fantasy world defined by Jude Wanniski. Simply a political writer turned investment advisor and propaganda blogger. He never sought the presidency or even ran for congress, nor did he ever have his Fox News show to spew his propaganda like Hannity and O’Reilly. Wanniski made numerous economic predictions and wasn’t even an economist. The thing that made him famous was being fired from the Wall Street Journal for handing out brochures for a Republican candidate, violating the Wall Street Journal’s code of ethics. Nowadays, this type of behavior is pretty much permitted.

    Jude Wanniski is mainly responsible for creating the term “supply side economics” or what is commonly referred to as the “trickle down theory.”  Wanniski is mostly remembered for designing the tax cuts for the first Reagan administration and perpetuating the myth that government should operate with no cash, and that tax policy was to blame for creating poverty in industrialized nations.

     The alternate universe that Republicans live in, insisting at every turn that keeping taxes low on the rich because they are “job creators” is patently false. The Reagan Republicans subscribed to this theory as does the Tea Party. The problem with subscribing to Wanniski’s ideology is that he wasn’t even a qualified economist in the first place.

     Which brings up my point: Wanniski was wring then and is wrong now. The philosophy of handling the wealthy with kid gloves when it comes to taxes is insane and extremely counterproductive.

     The sobering fact of this way of thinking is that giving more benefits and money to those that already have it has never created new industries, spurred investments, or opened up any new markets. Jobs begin and end with the consumer. The demand for services and goods are a direct link to the purchasing power of the consumer. The only way jobs are created is when there is a high demand for them. One would be sorely mistaken if they believed that cutting taxes for the wealthy will stimulate demand and growth- it never will.

Take Henry Ford for instance. Besides being a bigot, he was wrong on numerous things, but he was dead on about a worker being paid higher wages and not hoarding all the cash for himself. That’s what made his business so successful. A strong tax policy allows businesses to flourish by paying higher wages to its employees, in turn their profits are geared toward expansion. A weak tax policy ignores expansion, critically harming consumers by encouraged business owners to take more of the pie for themselves. The Republican talking point of Redistribution of wealth is bogus at best, yet redistribution already exists, except instead of trickling down, it is redistributed upward, in turn making the economy go belly-up.

You may ask, how do you know that? It’s been tried to no effect more than once, as recently as in the past 10-years, which is where we find ourselves at the moment. Stuck in quicksand trying to start the car again with the same failed “trickle down theories.”

Looking like man who would have fitted perfectly into Hitler’s SS gangsters, Breivik made his first appearance in a Norwegian court.

He claims that although the killings were brutal, they were necessary. His purpose was to alert Europe to the so-called dangers of an Islamic takeover. That was why he chose a youth camp for junior members of Norway’s left of centre Labour party and Government. Over 80 young people had to be massacred to make his point that this Government had, in his opinion, let the nation down.

Not surprisingly his father has disowned him, saying he will never have contact with him again, and wishes his son had shot himself.

Black Uniform

But Breivik had not intention of killing himself. The killings were part of his plan to make his feelings known across Europe. He had requested that he allowed to wear a black uniform in court – and for the hearings to be open so the press could report his views.  Both requests were refused and he was told he would be held for the next 4 weeks in confinement with no visitors at all apart from his lawyer. When Breivik’s lawyer was asked to describe what his client was like during the court appearance, he paused for a moment then simply said, “Calm.”

It was later reported that Breivik had been preparing his campaign for up to 15 years. His manifesto was long and well researched.

US Blogs and links to UK far right  

Breivik made no less than 64 references to passages in US blogs that specialise in anti-Muslim attacks. It was clear that he drew inspiration from the hysterical reporting and anti-Muslim propaganda of many US based blogs. Bruce Bawer writing in Murdock’s Wall Street Journal said he was afraid Breivik may become the poster boy for criticism of Islam. Breivik himself claimed he had links with the far right UK party, The English Defence League, an outspoken anti-Muslim group.

Most ominously of all the claimed that he two other cells were active in Norway. The whole nation is on alert for more acts of terrorism – at the same time as it unites across all political parties  in total opposition to his views