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 of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (7468)	4/24/2009 4:57:46 AM
From: Bearcatbob	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86356

"Bob, you are the one who is being duped. Or duping, I'm not sure which, but I suspect the former--I think you believe what you are saying. But--read the previous post and this one. Pretty standard fare for the right wing to ignore their own scientists' findings, take others' work out of context or completely misrepresent it, and try to confuse the public to defend their own vested interests." Sam, I will try to treat your comment with respect. 1. Ignoring facts - any facts that question GW are trashed by the alarmists. Who ignores facts - seems the charge can go both ways. 2. Duped - hockey stick? Antartic ice data? Russian data "assumptions"? Tipping point? LOL - the data has been shown to be false time after time - the scare data. Ultimately one has to use common sense. What is the agenda of the alarmists? What is their data? What are their tactics? What is the record of their flip flops? If GW is the threat the alarmists claim they would be for things like nuclear power. What we get instead is a platform of industrial anti capitalist policy. When the proposed solutions are honest and realistic I will take the critics more seriously. As long as the tactic is scare only with no solution - I hold the alarmists in total contempt and I am seriously suspicious of their underlying motives. BTW - here is a good example of the left fighting the others side of the issue. youtube.com The bottom line is that any material change in energy supply patterns will take decades to negotiate the legal and technical barriers - especially the legal barriers so skillfully erected by the left to prevent construction of energy projects. Now - with this recognition in place and China, India and the rest of the world not giving a flip - we are being asked to wreck the economy on something that won't matter a lick. We need an honest discussion - not a whacky Algore terrorising the world with stories of doom and gloom. Bob

To: Sam who wrote (7468)	4/24/2009 10:36:19 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 86356

Several sentences written in 1995 by an unknown person for a "primer" that was never used or distributed to anyone by a group which no longer exists supplied by an anonymous environmental lawyer to the NYT. That's enough to base a story on? How could anyone prove or disprove anything about the sentences? Were the disputed sentences even written by a scientist? We don't know. What's most likely that the writer would be? A PR consultant, not a scientist. What was the unknown writers basis for making the statements? Just general opinion? Blind acceptance of the 1995 IPCC? We don't know what the opinion expressed in those few sentences was based on. What a weak source for a story. No wonder the Times is going down.

To: Sam who wrote (7468)	4/24/2009 1:56:52 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86356

The following quote from your article is worthy of a repost: Others, like Exxon Mobil, now recognize a human contribution to global warming and have largely dropped financial support to groups challenging the science. So a major oil company now acknowledges the human contribution to global warming, and yet, some folks on this thread continue to believe that there is some global conspiracy to push phony science. Makes me wonder who the real kooks are, the global warming advocates or the deniers?