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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (534500)	12/5/2009 11:50:08 AM
From: d[-_-]b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577973

...and the investments that need to be made to transition to renewables are long overdue and very beneficial to the human race... We'll switch once we run out of fossil fuels - remember peak oil is nye.

To: Alighieri who wrote (534500)	12/5/2009 12:07:30 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1577973

The controversial passages represents a handful of sentences and these have been covered to nausea ... what does that mean? The controversial passages are controversial because they show that the so-called "scientists" are willing to go to any extremes to manipulate the data to get the result they desire. Also, if you take the time to peruse some of the other emails, it is clear the same attitude prevails and there are plenty of other emails that COULD have been selected to be "controversial". These emails don't show anything that disproves the science of GW So, why was all the time and effort spent in trying to prove Relativity? Why not just say, "Einstein laid it out there, until someone can disprove it, it is the law of the land"? That's not how science is done; that's not how statistics is done. You don't just make the claim then have it become law until someone disproves it. That's the first problem. The second is that the Left wants us to spend massive sums of money on infrastructure and incentives -- trillions of dollars -- when we can't even establish with reasonable certainty that a problem exists at all. It is insane to do so based on junk science. If you can't get good science that can be replicated consistently, so that the science is clear, we should not be risking the future of our country on these expenditures. And these emails prove, if nothing else, that such science does not yet exist. Most people, like me, are open to the possibility. But we require proof. Not speculation, not junk science, but absolute, indisputable proof. If you can't deliver it, you're not getting trillions of dollars.