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: RetiredNow who wrote (14686)	12/6/2009 10:32:06 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 86356

It's true that there is a lot of attribution to GW going on. It's anchoring at its worst. However, the underlying science of GW is sound. Doesn't look very sound to me. If it were the proponents wouldn't have to be throwing away raw data, hiding things and rigging the peer review process. People hide things when they have something to hide. Personally I think 20 years from now, AGW will be history and the present proponents will be trying to hide their past positions ... like John Holdren: tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com And James Hansen, who now runs NASA GISS: Investor's Business Daily reports that a 1971 Washington Post scare piece entitled "U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming" fretted that burning fossil fuels discharges particles into the atmosphere that reflect the sun's rays back into space. Emissions over 5–10 years supposedly "could be sufficient to trigger an ice age." The NASA research behind this hysteria was supported by a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen," the same guy who now refers to those who won't drink the global warming Kool-Aid as "court jesters." moonbattery.com