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 : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pogohere who wrote (105371)	9/24/2009 4:20:27 PM
From: GST	3 Recommendations Respond to of 110194

This is the sort of polemic that makes the broader scientific community pull out their hair. The core teams of hundreds of scientists that devoted their time to unravelling the dynamics of climate change did not include every scientist on earth, and there are certainly those who felt 'left out'. My heart bleeds for them. The consensus that was formed did not include lone researchers on the fringe -- including some very capable people. But a consensus did emerge among the solid core of scientists working together over long periods of time working with the best data they could compile and analyze -- and when they had, after such extensive scientific scrutiny, come to the conclusion that climate change was real and significantly influenced by human activity, they went public. Now it is time to start the much more difficult process of dealing with policy -- and doing it with idiots screaming 'its all a hoax, there is no scientific consensus, its all a commie plot, Al Gore is a fat head, I saw some sunspots and it was too cold for my tomatoes to grow this year, and the ice caps are melting on Mars -- how the hell is that caused by humans?". In other words, we must endure the idiots while searching for ways to take meaningful action.

To: pogohere who wrote (105371)	9/24/2009 5:22:33 PM
From: marcher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

plimer seems to be a good example of think tank advocacy: wiki: en.wikipedia.org Plimer is listed as an associate of the Institute of Public Affairs,[5][6] a conservative think tank with close ties to the Liberal Party of Australia.[7] conflict of interest? Plimer is a director of three Australian mining companies: Ivanhoe,[27] CBH Resources[27] and Kefi Minerals.[28] Plimer rejects claims of a conflict between his commercial mining interests and his view that man-made climate change is a myth.[27] Plimer has said that the proposed Australian carbon-trading scheme could decimate the Australian mining industry.