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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Math Junkie who wrote (37609)	8/3/2008 2:58:33 PM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Math Junkie - I too have an engineering background and decades of experience. That's why I know that I'm not qualified to debate the science of Global Warming. But I am qualified to observe that there is debate and one side, in almost a childish manner, is claiming that no responsible scientist disagrees with them. Apparently defining "responsible" as someone who shares their view. That's immature and not needed when searching for the truth. I'm sure one of the websites you reference is well qualified to debate the issue and I hope that debate continues, that's what science is all about. The other organization is however a political one and injecting politics is part of the problem. It might be of interest to you to read some of the comments by scientists who's work was cited by the IPCC and reported as drawing the exact opposite conclusions that the scientists themselves concluded in their findings. Politics does not make for good science. Regardless of the question of Global Warming and to what extent human activity may or may not be responsible, it is unfathomable how anyone can ignore the 100s of millions of tons of CO2 plus 10s of thousands of tons of uranium and thorium dumped into the atmosphere by coal fired plants every year because of irrational fears of nuclear power plants. If Global Warming is a result of human activity, where better to attack the problem than to remove this enormous source of greenhouse gases? Even if global warming is not a result of human activity (not my claim) then who wants to breath from coal fired plants, 10,000 times more uranium and thorium than emitted by all nuclear accidents and testing combined? There is simply no avoiding the conclusion that any alternative to nuclear power poses far more dangers than what the alarmists are trying to avoid, safe, clean, cheap, limitless nuclear power.

To: Math Junkie who wrote (37609)	8/3/2008 3:20:47 PM
From: InvesTing	Respond to of 42834

Only idiots would go headlong into costly fixes before they could clearly demonstrate the cause and effect nature of the problem and why a fix would work. 1) There is no proof that any global warming we are experiencing is man made 2) There is zero proof that any measures we would take at this time would change any outcome. Yet to hear many who buy into this hugely political (stemming in many ways from a liberal feel good, screw the USA, and US envy in the UN) they have accurately diagnosed the malady, they want no discussion of whether their diagnosis is correct. They want absolutely no questions--just "do as we say and take our word for it". This quite likely false premise has attracted the most heat of any cause celeb of the political left in history. Disparate left wingers all find a solidarity in curing man made global warming. From Greenpeace to the Sierra Club, from the UN to the democrat party, it seems that there has been a secret scientific conclusion that the science has been settled and it is time for the biggest countries to become poor third world companies while poor third world countries are to pollute away. Indeed the bastions of liberalism in this country-the press and academic community are big promoters of this 'back to bicycle" (unless you are wealthy and then you claim you buy energy credits to pollute like Algore) So kids are taught that man is responsible for killing polar bears and their parents driving their van are murderers. The spoiled kids and their rock stars are of course sure that man made global warming is a fact and just electing leftist leaders and ruining the economy will make things hunky dory. Now these same folks are anti-nuke and anti coal and anti natural gas. They are simply ANTI america in large part. It has almost come to the point you cannot be an environmentalist, a good steward of our natural resources unless you buy into this man made global warming hokus pokus. Indeed it is nearly political suicide to stand up and call it junk these days because of the great crusade and aid of the media and education in propagating a myth. We have been a fat dumb and happy country for a long time and could afford to be stupid. Stupid as in not drilling on the outter shelf or Anwar. Stupid as in stopping nuclear projects that are sorely needed. Stupid as to put so much stock in corn based ethanol production. It enabled dogooders like Gore and the Sierra Club and others to be stupid. Now we are in a pickle economically and in danger of losing our military supremacy. Spending trillions on a wild goose chase to solve a problem that is not proven to exist, is a recipe for the end of the nation we all have known. Here's an example of the left wingers that promote global warming and have ties to all matter of left wing causes. This guy was wanting to stop Reagan's placing missles in Europe--which helped end the cold war--that we WON. This guy was for unilateral nuclear disarmenment as well. His latest plan is to shoot sulfer dioxide into the atmosphere to cure global warming. wired.com Whacky solutions to a problem that does not exist or is insoluable is not what we need. We might well get it. If you listened to Nancy Pelosi on ABC this morning you heard the nexus of global warming and leftist hate america first politics. She won't let drilling come up for a vote because "we are citizens of the world and we have to protect it from global warming." Manmade Global Warming---99% politics 1% science.

To: Math Junkie who wrote (37609)	8/4/2008 9:28:11 AM
From: joefromspringfield	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Math_junkie pontificated: "It's very difficult for the average person to know what is true and what isn't when it comes to scientific issues, especially ones with implications for public policy. That's why the issue of whether there is or isn't a consensus, how much of a consensus, etc. is important. People throw that 31,000+ number around as if it should be accepted as deciding the issue. It would be much more useful to know the percentage." GOOD GRIEF even I know that consensus is meaningless when it comes to science. There was a time when the consensus of scientists were sure that the sun revolved around the earth. They though that a scientist named Galileo was a nut. Consensus in science has about as much meaning as the fact that Al Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 presidential election. Just as we don't elect a president be popular vote we don't conduct science by consensus.