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 : Manmade Global Warming, A hoax? A Scam? or a Doomsday Cult? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Hurst who wrote (1307)	7/19/2010 11:01:53 PM
From: Sweet Ol	1 Recommendation Respond to of 4326

Don, thanks for the clarification. I was unable to connect the dots in your previous post - now I see your reasoning. There is a lot of evidence disputing the allegation that CO2 is the primary cause of global warming. It might be, but the fact that in ancient history we have seen much higher levels of CO2 makes me wonder how significant it is. Also, it is a very small proportion of the atmosphere. In addition it is so important for plant growth and thereby food. So, I say the jury is still out, but I am somewhat skeptical. Long ago I learned the importance of the phrase - "follow the money." All scientists are paid by somebody. It may be a company who employs them, or it may be grants to academics. In my old age I have become more cynical. I don't see the GW proponents (other than the movie makers) as operating a scam, but I question the unbiased nature of the research on both sides of the issue. But, after all, the scientific method involves proposing a theory and then trying to prove it right or wrong. We just have to consider the sources of information. I no longer trust academic journals to give unbiased information or to state up front that something is opinion. I think this has degenerated greatly in my lifetime primarily due to the "publish or perish" syndrome. I agree that we have no national energy policy - period! A rational policy takes all factors into account. Our political leaders and others are schizoid about energy. Everyone wants to stop sending all our energy money to countries who hate us, but we don't want to have any drilling or mining in our country. Everyone who has thought about the problem knows that we can't change overnight. We can't generate enough wind or solar to make a significant difference in the next 25 years. We don't have the transmission infrastructure to make it work. We don't have the infrastructure to power our transportation by alternate fuels and won't for decades. We can't build nuclear power plants and we refuse to deal with their waste products. A rational person realizes that we have to move forward in all directions at once and we have to be realistic about our goals. But I don't expect rationality in my lifetime. What is gong to make everything much harder to accomplish is the fact that we are in a depression that is going to get much worse before it gets better. We won't have the money to do very much except pay the interest on our debts. The next few generations will be enslaved to this debt and unable to do the things they know need doing. It will be very frustrating for them. My heart goes out to my grandchildren. They don't realize what a tough time they are going to have. That frustration will lead to divisiveness and distrust to a degree that this country has not seen since the Civil War. I have ranted far too long. Blessings to all, JRH

To: Don Hurst who wrote (1307)	7/19/2010 11:51:26 PM
From: J.B.C.	9 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4326

The consensus of scientists say the rising CO2 in our atmosphere is a serious danger to our planet and I believe them. Actually, the majority of real scientist say the opposite, however their voice is suppressed by those with an agenda. The voice saying that there is man made global warming, is mostly made up of those that are either have a political gain, are researcher paid to provide supporting evidence of global warming, or others with non-acdemic credentials posing as scientist to try to give weight to the global warming hoax. It's interesting that you say "you believe them", telling us you don't have the ability to discriminate between fact or fiction but at the same time you try to discredit other sources that disagree with the "facts" you've chosen: Keep reading ("drinking") your "climategate" e-mails from the Morano, Singer ("Merchants of Doubt") crowd and watch more InHofe, Palin and Monckton climate change "expertise" stuff...ignore the facts just put more ice in your "kool-aid" and keep watching your Beck CDs. Message 26694583 How about this, by training I'm an engineer. Over 10 years ago, I began an investigation into the global warming issue. I didn't read global warming theorist, I read what was available as proof for global warming. I can offer that in conclusion, anthropogenic global warming is not true. I debated with Kennith Trenberth on-line, he ran from the discussion, he knew he was caught in his scam. So now that you are aware that the true majority of scientist DON'T believe in global warming. And that most scientist that support global warming, are paid to do so, are you willing to side with the true majority scientific community? ....I thought so, nothing more than a political hack, easily manipulated. Either unwilling or not smart enough to figure it out for yourself. To believe this is a "scam" by science is ludicrous Really? How did you do in the Y2K scam? Did you get a shot for the swine flu last year. Both those issues were lead by scientist. How'd that work for you following those consensuses? I guess the consensus is always right, huh Don? By the way I didn't get a swine flu shot, what a hoax there as well. Jim

To: Don Hurst who wrote (1307)	7/20/2010 9:07:27 AM
From: Hawkmoon	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4326

Don.. the phytoplankton levels in the world's oceans have diminished by some 20-30% over the past 30 years... That's 20-30% less capability to absorb and sequester atmospheric CO2, which likely contributes significantly to increases in CO2 levels. Ever heard a major GW scientist discuss that fact? In fact, we've seen active opposition to engaging in iron fertilization of the oceans to augment phytoplankton levels. It would be nice if the GW debate was more about the facts, rather than about the agenda. Hawk