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: miraje who wrote (7588)	4/25/2009 12:02:38 PM
From: Bearcatbob	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86356

Let's get the non believer side of the GW warming issue on the table: 1. No science can model the system. Wild claims have been repeatedly proven to be false. The alarmists have no credibility. Why are the wild claims made? 2. Climate change is a historical fact. It has happened before long before the industrial age - why is the cause different now? 3. GW alarmists viscously try to silent critics. Why? 4. The only meaningful technology that would make a difference - nuclear power - is resisted by GW alarmists. Why? (Solar farms also meet wacko environmentalist resistance.) 5. EPA regulations require Best Available Control Technology - none exists. How will that be implemented? 6. Any thing we do on a "maybe" will not matter as China and India etc. do not give a flip. Since the tipping point is near - hey - we are going to tip - why commit economic suicide if it does not matter. If we should not be concerned about a near term tipping point - then it is all just a continued lie! 5. GW alarmists are profiteers. I do not need to ask why? Ultimately I believe GW alarmism is a vehicle to implement industrial policy - or some other agenda that I have not yet figured out - perhaps hatred of free market capitalism. The real problem is that those the left claims to care about the most will be hurt the most. However, by impoverishing millions they will justify being reelected to provide compassion. Bob

To: miraje who wrote (7588)	4/25/2009 1:40:12 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Sure, whatever you say. It is your thread and I will obey your rules, so I'll be more careful in the future. Or if you want me to stop postng, just PM me and I will be on my way. I wasn't sure. The thread header says politics of energy. The debate on global warming (certainly the center piece of energy debate) has become nothing but politics, pretty much divided between right and left. The question regarding if man is causing global warming should be nothing but pure science. Either man is causing global warming, or he is not. So the only way politics enters the debate is when people, like oil and coal executives, hire people to muddy up the water and try to make it political. Like the cigarette companies did. So then the question becomes, how are the detractors attempts to muddy the debate manifesting the question and issue, it seems to me? The left pretty much believes in global warming caused by man and the right does not. People say they want to discuss stuff unitl they can't defend their position, then out comes the ignore button. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. It reminds me of how the cigartette companies denied for over 50 years that cigarettes were addictive or caused cancer, or that DDT, lead, mercury and PCB's were harmless. But I try to respect all threads rules. If I do not like them I can leave. I do appreciate a PM though asking me to leave and I will. Quietly.