

In the past the number of vehicles in the Pentagon parking lot has been used to predict military operations.

Will covered parking lots become routine to defeat this? If so, the creation of a covered parking lot may become an indicator of classified activity, To counteract that you would need to make covered parking lots sufficiently common to eliminate it as a useful indicator,

If solar panels are used to cover parking lots it becomes win-win for the parking lot nation -- deriving clean energy while hiding suspicious activity,Articles Tagged "Open Letter/Fax"
Following the publication of your post here, I have written to your newspaper by e-mail, expressing my concerns about the piece, and inviting the newspaper to contact me to discuss it informally, to avoid the need to take expensive and (to you) potentially damaging action in order to protect my professional reputation.
Since your newspaper has not troubled itself to contact me, I am forced to take the step of contacting you and the newspaper more formally, which I am in the process of so doing.
In the meantime, however, I am writing here as the most direct means of contacting you, to ask you to remove from this post all references to myself, as being libellous and highly damaging - the precise details of which will be passed to your newspaper shortly.
You may, of course, leave this message visible or remove it, but you may wish to note that the addition of further comments arising as a result of references to me remaining in your post, and which are also of a libellous or denigratory nature, may form part of any subsequent action which I choose to take.
Commentators who choose to comment on this post may also wish to note that I would be happy to enjoin them in any legal action taken against Mr Monbiot or The Guardian newspaper if they too are of a libellous or denigratory nature. You have been warned.
Is there or isn't there a scientific consensus on climate change?
What's brought me here now is the letter published in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) about 10 days ago, in which a group of 16 scientists declared there was "no need to panic on global warming".
"A large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed," it says.
In other words - in a meme that's become very familiar over the last few years - "the consensus is cracking".
Using the UN IPCC's own published data, the "science" of man-made climate change is scrutinised and found wanting.
"Based on government advertising and campaigns, you may be worried that humans are warming our planet catastrophically. From what I've seen from IPCC data provided by the IPCC itself, the government's position is unfounded."
"The IPCC itself provides information discrediting its own computer models and claims. Although not mentioned in the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers handed to governments and the media, the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report of 2007 (4AR) discloses that climate models could not reproduce the average temperatures observed unless those models included estimates of the impact of human production of 'greenhouse gases'. Even though human production of 'greenhouse gases' is trivial besides Nature's overwhelming production, the IPCC explains the failure of its models by blaming the errors on the tiny human portion (3%) of Earth's annual CO2 production.
This conclusion by the IPCC is based on an implication that the computer models of natural climate were 100% accurate and reliable. But the IPCC report itself advises that the level of scientific understanding of the majority of climate drivers is very poor."
"Thus, the IPCC claims human production of CO2 causes global warming simply because that is its excuse for the error in its models. No logic, no data. Only a political need."
We believe that many of our brother and sister scientists are too certain of themselves regarding climate change. We have looked at the same data and same models that they have, but we have drawn different conclusions. We disagree about the range and extremity of changes and wonder if our colleagues have let their politics influence their science.
Our colleagues often point to their numbers and suggest that because many of them belong to various learned organizations, they therefore cannot be wrong. But we belong to the same organizations and we also have a large membership. Our colleagues are fond of announcing that they have polled themselves and that their resulting unanimity proves their case. But we have polled ourselves too, and we are unanimous in concluding a logical fallacy is not an ideal foundation for science. No scientific body has license to issue “Truths” determined by vote.
Earth’s climate has always changed; it has never been constant; thus we conclude that it always will change. It is also clear that mankind must have some effect on the climate. With these statements, we agree with our colleagues. We diverge when estimating the magnitude of effects.
Recently, you have decided to take sides in a scientific debate. That in itself is very foolish. Why would Google want to take either side when there is a disagreement between scientists? I thought your motto was “Do No Evil.” For the 900-pound gorilla to take sides in any tempestuous politically charged scientific discussion is an extremely stupid thing to do, and in this case definitely verges on the E-word.
In fact, that’s why up until now I trusted Google, because I always felt that I was being given the unvarnished truth. I always felt that Google could be trusted, because you didn’t have a dog in the fight. I believed you weren’t trying to slant your results, that you were neutral, because you had nothing to prove.
So what did you guys do? You’re now providing money to 21 supporters of the CO2 hypothesis, funding them as “Google Fellows” to go and flog their scientific claims in the marketplace of ideas. Is this the new face of Google, advocating for a partisan idea?
Scientists have an obligation to communicate their work to the world, and to be open and transparent about doing it. “Trust me, I’m a scientist” is not a good enough answer to give to policymakers or the general public who are looking to make informed decisions on important topics.
This is an area on which people on both sides of the global warming debate should be able to agree. However, it is clear that many in the climatological mainstream do not share this belief. The IPCC has indicated that drafts and review comments on its reports will not be published until after the main report and that, for Working Group I at least, the panel's new conflict of interest policy will not apply to the Fifth Assessment Report.
As I am sure you will agree, these decisions go against the principles of openness and transparency that you say you favour. This being the case, I am asking you, on behalf of the Royal Society, to make a public call for the IPCC to correct these issues.
Hon Hai Precision Ind. Co. Ltd., one of the world's largest EMS (electronics manufacturing services) provider based in Taiwan, reportedly ships automotive-application liquid crystal display (LCD) panels to American premium electric-car maker Tesla, through its affiliated Innolux Display Corp., according to institutional investors.
Officials at Hon Hai refused to comment on the market rumors.
Hon Hai's chairman Terry Gou said previously that he met with Tesla's founder and CEO Elon Musk in late 2013 when he made a business trip to the U.S. Some institutional investors guess that the Hon Hai-Tesla partnership was finalized by Gou and Musk at that time.
Industry insiders said Hon Hai is supplying 17-inch automotive panels for Tesla's Model S electric car through Innolux and that shipments are expected to expand as the displays are used in other Tesla models in the future.
In 2012, Innolux became the world's second-largest supplier of automotive panels trailing only Japan Display Inc. (JDI). In addition to Tesla, the Taiwanese panel maker also delivers display panels to international automakers such as BMW, Porsche, Jaguar and Ford. The company shipped an estimated 14 million automotive panels in 2013, positioning the company to take the top spot in the market.
Gou once said that Hon Hai has not excluded the possibility of setting up a 10th-generation (10G) TFT-LCD production line in the U.S. Many U.S. state governments are eager to host the project.
Industry sources note that Gou has been eyeing the automotive industry and Hon Hai sees car electronics as an important part of the group's 7C (computer, communication, and consumer electronics, channel, car, content, and medical care) business deployment.
In 2005, Hon Hai acquired automotive-electronic maker local AnTec Electric System Co., Ltd., and later it invested in Hua-chuang Automobile Information Technical Center Co. Ltd. (HAITEC), the vehicle and automotive technology development arm of Taiwan's Yulon Group. Hon Hai also spearheaded the establishment of the Taiwan Telematics Industry Alliance (TTIA) in 2009 and became the convener company of the technology integration working group. Gou disclosed previously that he has had talks with Li Shufu, chairman of Chinese automaker Geely Automobile Holdings Ltd., over possible cooperation on energy-saving and automotive electronics.
Hon Hai acquires Taiwan automotive-electronics maker AnTec.
Invests in HAITEC of Yulon Group.
Spearheads the establishment of TTIA.
Begins talks with Chinese automaker Geely.
Wins order for automotive infotainment systems from German automaker Audi.
Reportedly ties up with Chinese automaker Hawtai