Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (10174)	4/1/2001 6:20:43 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

And there are plenty who disagree as well. JLA

To: E who wrote (10174)	4/1/2001 7:41:34 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Those thilly thientists don't know what they are talking about. Why they are just wascally wabbits. The people you can really trust are the folks working for big business (esp big oil) you KNOW they have our best interests at heart. Don't be a thilly wabbit.

To: E who wrote (10174)	4/1/2001 10:20:48 PM
From: LTK007	Respond to of 82486

global warming is not a HOT topic in Maine right now,in fact i wouldn't mention the subject to us:)Part of the state got another 18 inches of snow yesterday(just 6 where i am) and there is a 4foot snow cover STILL in sizable sections of the state.It has been a brutal winter here.max

To: E who wrote (10174)	4/2/2001 9:32:46 AM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 82486

As you know, being in the majority does not prove that a particular theory is correct. Ask Copernicus. JLA

To: E who wrote (10174)	4/2/2001 9:52:55 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 82486

>>Tell it to the Nobel Laureate Scientists, the majority of whom think you're wrong, lol. Do a majority - or any - of those Nobels have their expertise in relevant areas? Usually your crowd presents the fraud that these guys know what they are talking about. The scientists with relevant expertise appear to agree that "global warming" cannot be definitively linked with human activities. Hence the hysterics on your side.

To: E who wrote (10174)	4/2/2001 10:14:17 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 82486

...A petition circulated to scientists urging lawmakers to reject the Kyoto Protocol has been signed by over 17,000 individuals including over 2,000 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers and environmental scientists. An additional 4,400, according to the petition’s sponsors, are qualified to assess the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth’s plant and animal life and most of the remaining signers have technical training suitable to understanding climate change issues.... ...Ozone Action, the environmental group who did their own petition drive urging lawmakers to accept the Kyoto Protocol that attracted only 2,600 signatures, attacked the petition saying that, "Several members of the scientific community have looked over the signatories listed on the petition’s Web site, and they did not recognize a single scientist known for work on climate change" (The Washington Times, April 24, 1998). Yet Ozone Action cried foul when it was pointed out that only about 10 percent of their list of 2,600 scientists had the expertise to qualify them to speak on the issue of attribution. Nearly 100 disciplines, according to Ozone Action, are "aware of the wide-ranging, day-to-day impacts of climate change" (The Washington Times, March 8, 1998). Their list, however, included anthropologists, psychologists, veterinarians, a gynecologist and many who didn’t even have advanced degrees.... ...Apparently only an "ambitious" industry plan would seek to educate the public about the science (or lack thereof) behind the Kyoto Protocol. NET officials were alarmed that the American Petroleum Institute was planning to distribute "a global climate science information kit to the media which include . . . peer-reviewed articles throwing doubt on the ‘conventional wisdom." It’s worth remembering that this is the same group which ghost wrote various op-eds for business and government officials at the time of the Kyoto conference, including one for Enron Corporation CEO Kenneth Lay (as reported in our March 18, 1998 issue). Enron produces natural gas. The Kyoto Protocol would hurt Enron’s competitors (Detroit News, April 30, 1998). Portraying legitimate participation in the democratic process by educating the public, media and lawmakers as a sinister plot only suggests that proponents of the Kyoto Protocol are concerned that the scientific case for a treaty is not as strong as they claim.... globalwarming.org