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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (1653)	9/12/2011 10:49:01 AM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Respond to of 85487

"there's over 1600 climate scientists working for the Federal Government alone)." why ? what a waste of money. And those scientists have to keep making up stuff to show there is AGW or they will lose their jobs. Follow the money

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (1653)	9/12/2011 10:49:30 AM
From: Bearcatbob	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

What is a "climate scientist"? What qualifications are necessary to be a "climate scientist"?

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (1653)	9/12/2011 11:20:48 AM
From: Brumar89	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

The tainted scientists control the major governmental institutions like GISS, NCAR, etc. If there are 1600 'climate scientists' working for the federal government, most of them work for James Hansen or Kevin Trenberth or similar climategate conspirators. The ones who don't directly report to such folks are mostly dependent on grants from them. Furthermore, the global temperature record is maintained by institutions controlled by these idealogues and we KNOW they've 'adjusted' temperature records. It doesn't boggle the mind at all that most climate science research has been corrupted. The leaked climategate emails confirmed what people feared. I didn't use terms like 'con' till after climategate. I assumed there were mostly legitimate differences of opinion. No longer. It's a con game, for sure. I realize people don't want to think that, but that's not my fault.

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (1653)	9/12/2011 11:24:06 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Why does the right, in general, want to do this? I don't know for sure, but probably because of the economic inferences to be drawn out of Hansen's recommendations--which I admit would be drastic if implemented (shut down coal mining). Drastic? C'mon! it would cripple our economy. Millions of people would die. Eliminating coal from the energy equation is a death sentence for millions of people. We get 50% of our power from coal, do you really think we can support our infrastructure and population with wind turbines and solar? Jim Hansen can prove that the oceans are going to rise 5 ft in two years and we would still have coal power. Why? because we don't have a choice. This whole thing is a kabuki dance.