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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (141207)	4/30/2001 12:53:38 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Actually, the article link was in response to your assertion that no-name scientists are in the pockets of "right wing" interests. Well, it would seem they are actually in the pockets of the environmental lobby. Even the UN scientists who drew up the document on global warming so often cited by environmentalists say the models are imperfect and can not predict future climate with any degree of certainty. Environmentalists prefer to quote the political sections of the document, which lack any such scepticism. And as I said, only 15% of the American Meteorological Society agree with the evidence, THE professional organization for climatologists and atmospheric scientists in the United States. The "bulk" of these scientists reject the global warming evidence. Recently 2600 scientists signed a petition, amongst whom was a former board member of the National Academy of Sciences, rejecting global warming evidence. Global warming is a sham. Humans create only 1% of the total global greenhouse gas emissions. Humans would have to reduce atmospheric carbon emissions by 60% to even register a blip on the climate models for global warming. Hell, Im willing to make a sacrifice or two for clean water and air, But I sure as hell am not willing to live in the 18th century for bogus global warming science. Global Warming science is predicated upon false assumptions and bad methodology and data. 1. imperfect, at best, knowledge and understanding of the rate at which the oceans and forests soak up carbon from the atmosphere. 2. false warming data from relying on readings taken in urban heat sinks. 3. false warming data from a false assumption about the correllation between surface oceanic water temperatures and the temperature of the air immediately above it. This correllation has been proven false. Derek