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 : Ride the Tiger with CD -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Land Shark who wrote (162500)	6/3/2009 3:36:05 PM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 313147

We could go on. Yes/no been proved/been disproved ad infinitonauseaoid. At least I will give you three stars for intelligent dumbness! :) But seriously, you and 10,000 maniac scientoids are grasping at straws. NASA did not "refute this". They did not even do any work. It is really, really hard to refute. You don't refute as I think you are aware, a scientific theory by saying, "uh-uh we didn't find any effect, and hey! We are spacemen!" The lack of modelling of relative humidity is because they did it wrong. They got the radiation figures wrong. Small mistake. Big difference. And warm water does is not caused by ocean currents? Huh? So I guess we throw El Nino out with the Pacific Ocean bath water. Warm pop. Try it. Fizz fizz, plop, plop, eventually the penny will drop. Remember the number of mathematicians who told Marylin Vos Savant she was mathematically illiterate because she said that making a choice changed odds! Heresy they screamed. She was a dunce. The Monty Hall problem. 10,000 math profs signed a petition saying she was an idiot. The problem is she was right. EC<:-}