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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Win Smith who wrote (75674)	12/2/2009 1:32:54 PM
From: Sully-	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Assuming this journalist actually had this conversation & then managed to get all the facts right, so what? The Bush Admin didn't act that way in any discernible form on matters of importance. Unless, of course you are a 9/11 truther or some other tin foil hat conspiracy theory monger.

To: Win Smith who wrote (75674)	12/2/2009 1:49:13 PM
From: Sully-	2 Recommendations Respond to of 90947

Speaking of "pithy". You seem to have thrown out this questionable interview that never got any traction [because of it's highly dubious nature] to avoid the plethora of inconvenient facts RE: the global warming fraud. I wonder why that is? Perhaps you could provide a pithy response to the following question. Many tens of millions of tax dollars have been spent globally on computer modeling to project the climate in the future. Every one of them predicted steadily increasing global temps as CO2 levels increased. In fact they all show steady increases in temps [though more slowly] even if CO2 levels are brought into check. Not one of them predicted global temps to quit rising since the late 1990's. None of them predicted global temps to begin to fall like they have the last few years [even though CO2 continued to increase]. Also, none of them accurately recreated known global temps from the past when all known data from the past is inputted. Why should we trust anything from the global warming community when their main source of "evidence" is basically bunk?