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: koan who wrote (7641)	4/25/2009 8:32:22 PM
From: The Vet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

underestimating their knowledge. If their knowledge and their evidence is so compelling then how come they can't, or won't explain it so that all can understand. Even on this thread over the past few days I have posed several obvious specific questions that should be easy to answer. Several were about observed and measured temperature and CO2 level changes that followed recent volcanic eruptions. These measured observations seem to conflict with what would be expected if the current theory proposed by your experts on the links between atmospheric greenhouse gasses were actually valid, but they fit perfectly if CO2 was a RESULT of warming not a CAUSE. Now why is it that none of your experts with their vast knowledge of the subject seem to have addressed this and other apparent conflicts, and instead resort to personal attacks or simply ignore of anything that doesn't fit into their nice neat box?

To: koan who wrote (7641)	4/25/2009 9:21:38 PM
From: Little Joe	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Koan: You have no way of knowing what the vast majority of scientists believe. What you know, at best is what the vast majority of left wing political activists believe (and believe is the right word, because it is like a religion for them). Just as an experiment I googled "global warming scientists who support and scientists who oppose" I got over 450,000 articles. If you google global warming scientists who oppose", you get 350,000 articles. While I don't claim it to be consclusive, I think a rational person might think based on that there is some possibility that the golbal warming people could be wrong. Why don't you support your position with evidence instead of your opinion of who is credible and who is not? Why do your answers always revert to a claim of a non-existent consensus that you can't even prove exists. lj

To: koan who wrote (7641)	4/25/2009 9:23:06 PM
From: Little Joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Koan: You have no way of knowing what the vast majority of scientists believe. What you know, at best is what the vast majority of left wing political activists believe (and believe is the right word, because it is like a religion for them). Just as an experiment I googled "global warming scientists who support and scientists who oppose" I got over 450,000 articles. If you google global warming scientists who oppose", you get 350,000 articles. While I don't claim it to be conclusive, I think a rational person might think based on that there is some possibility that the global warming people could be wrong. Why don't you support your position with evidence instead of your opinion of who is credible and who is not? Why do your answers always revert to a claim of a non-existent consensus that you can't even prove exists. lj