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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sea Otter who wrote (255955)	6/27/2008 8:08:13 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793698

Steve, just so I understand you: are you saying the USGS, the US Academy of Sciences, NASA, the IPCC etc are liars? They are part of the "get a long" crowd. Remember Twains's old gag about "Lies, damn lies, and statistics!" The numbers can be massaged to give any result you like. Nowadays, they have switched to calling it "climate change." Any climate change up, down, or sideways, is blamed on GW. And they are very quiet about the fact that there has been no change for 7 years in global climate. Let me give you an example. In the 70's and 80's we had the "Nuclear Winter" scare. Physicists said that if we set off Atomic bombs the clouds would form a layer and we would have years of winter. They pushed the hell out of it to try to get us to cave in to the Soviets. Any Physicist who came out against it would have lost his job. Then in 91, when the Kuwait oil fires happened, the concept was disproven. The people pushing it immediately shut up. Incidently, a lot of those same people are now pushing GW.

To: Sea Otter who wrote (255955)	6/27/2008 8:24:27 PM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793698

I've posted my opinion. That the global warming crowd are afraid to openly debate the issue is the most damning evidence they are selling a lie that cannot stand up to scrutiny. globalwarminghoax.com petitionproject.org Man cannot accurately predict weather days in advance, they look even more foolish predicting the climate 10, 20, even 50 years out. We had a Stanford biologist over for dinner the other night (we live in silicon valley and my husband we both have lots of connections with Stanford), who has published several peer papers on climate-change effects on agriculture in temperate zones. He seemed pretty persuasive to me. In fact, Stanford scientific faculty has done a lot of work in this area. Are the Stanford faculty all liars? This Stanford paper? globalwarmingisahoax.blogspot.com "Computer models" garbage in, garbage out...

To: Sea Otter who wrote (255955)	6/27/2008 8:51:39 PM
From: rich evans	Respond to of 793698

I think GW is more complicated. IPCC ignored and did not allow or consider the dissenting opinion of 600 scientists. NASA has actually come out with their data which does not support GW and talked about cooling in the trophosphere. Stanford groups published articles in Stanford Magazine all assumed their was global warming and talked about remedial action and were very unscientific. Data now is coming in related to sunspots, and worring about a cooling cycle. Even if their is warming, it can not be stopped if China and India do nothing and even if everyone agrees , then an expanding world economy and population would still have CO2 increases. And maybe like in the 1200s increased temps would be good and stabalize and then start retreating. ETC ETC Rick

To: Sea Otter who wrote (255955)	6/27/2008 10:49:06 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 793698

Steve, just so I understand you: are you saying the USGS, the US Academy of Sciences, NASA, the IPCC etc are liars? Snake-oil salesmen? That's a pretty sweeping charge. Correct me if I didn't hear this correctly. Sure they are. You can find the evidence in their own publications. Compare the scary stuff in summaries (written by politicians) with the scientific conclusions in the scientific papers. Much, much weaker, with scientists now changing their minds as evidence for the models fails to show up. We haven't warmed in 10 years; the models all said we would. But no journalist looks at the science. Heck, just compare the stuff in each summary with the stuff that's been quietly retired from previous summaries, like Mann's infamous hockey stick chart. Meanwhile the IPCC claims any scientist who ever reviewed any part of any study as a supporter. Journalists lap it up.

To: Sea Otter who wrote (255955)	6/27/2008 11:02:03 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793698

We had a Stanford biologist over for dinner the other night (we live in silicon valley and my husband we both have lots of connections with Stanford), who has published several peer papers on climate-change effects on agriculture in temperate zones. He seemed pretty persuasive to me. In fact, Stanford scientific faculty has done a lot of work in this area. Are the Stanford faculty all liars? Did your friend write anything about changes that have actually occurred, anywhere? Or is it all hypothetical theorizing about the terrible disaster that will befall when global warming comes to pass? From the review, it was the second: and it worked great! he got into the paper! The word for this is not so much "lying" as "place seeking". That which is rewarded gets done more often. Surprise! Papers like this are designed to increase the public perception of global warming, while in fact containing no scientific data to support it at all. BTW, Bjorn Lomberg calculates that since more people die of cold than of heat, a rise of couple of degrees C would net-net be a benefit to humanity.