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: Sea Otter who wrote (10047)	2/22/2012 4:25:03 PM
From: longnshort	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

My son is a computer engineer, neither he nor any of his engineering friends buy the GW scam. He works at a very high tech research lab and he hasn't met an engineer nor physicist who buys the scam. They also believe in data and in science. That's why they don't buy it. The head of the whole place held a big meeting and told them to be quite about it. Too much federal money was involved he said follow the money

To: Sea Otter who wrote (10047)	2/22/2012 5:17:37 PM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Respond to of 85487

I remember them being called coffin nails in grade school in the 1950's. People who smoked knew it was unhealthy but chose to keep doing it ... just like today. The folks saying cigarettes were unhealthy weren't trying to shut down most of our energy industry. They just wanted to warn people.

To: Sea Otter who wrote (10047)	2/22/2012 5:27:00 PM
From: sm1th	4 Recommendations Respond to of 85487

I follow the science of GW It is critical to distinguish between belief in GW and belief in AGW. The climate has constantly changed, we have been on a very long term warming trend, with minor oscillations, since the end of the last ice age. But it is quite a leap to go from GW to man made GW based on inadequate data, and pitifully simplified computer models. We have about 40 years of fairly complete global data, and perhaps 200 years from a few locations. Based on that we are going to model changes that happen in cycles of 10's of thousands of years? The more honest scientists admit that they don't understand a lot of the factors, and exclude them from their models. For example, most models exclude variation in solar output, which is clearly ridiculous. But they don't know how to model it, so they ignore it as a variable. The models only include a few % of the potentially important variables, they are meaningless. I am neither an alarmist or a denier, I am a skeptic. Neither side has proven their position. As a pragmatist, I cannot justify completely restructuring th world's economy based on unproven, inadequate simulations of what might happen. Show me a plan to cut carbon emissions without destroying civilization, based on technology that actually exists and can work on the necessary scale at an affordable price. Anyone who had such a plan would be a $trillionare.