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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (88845)	6/23/2012 1:49:19 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 89467

MURDERGATE

To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (88845)	6/23/2012 2:10:15 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 89467

To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (88845)	6/23/2012 11:21:26 AM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Respond to of 89467

Green ‘drivel’ The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change. The implications were extraordinary. Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory. Unlike many “environmentalists,” who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic. His inventions have been used by NASA, among many other scientific organizations. Lovelock’s invention of the electron capture detector in 1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern environmental movement. Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century. Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect. He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances. Among his observations to the Guardian: (1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal. As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.) (2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion. “It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.” (3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines. As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.” (4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”

To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (88845)	6/23/2012 11:22:52 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 89467

The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria torontosun.com By Lorrie Goldstein ,Toronto Sun June 23, 2012 Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change. The implications were extraordinary. Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory. Unlike many “environmentalists,” who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic. His inventions have been used by NASA, among many other scientific organizations. Lovelock’s invention of the electron capture detector in 1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern environmental movement. Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century. Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect. He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances. Among his observations to the Guardian: (1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal. As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.) (2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion. “It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.” (3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines. As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.” (4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”

To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (88845)	6/23/2012 11:50:10 AM
From: joseffy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Gay Pride Weekend Theme FREE JERRY SANDUSKY

To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (88845)	6/23/2012 12:49:50 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

Debunking Rachel Maddow's Lies About 'Fast and Furious': MSNBC Hack Falsely Claims Scandal Just Like Shirley Sherrod 'Conspiracy' Tim Graham reports at NewsBusters, " Maddow Begs Media to Ignore Fast and Furious: Just Another 'Paranoid Delusion' Like Sherrod Scandal": In a ten-minute rant on her show Thursday night, Rachel Maddow tried to explain the long NBC and ABC blackout of “Fast and Furious” scandal news by somehow tying it to the Shirley Sherrod controversy. The American people should move along, since this scandal is only a “paranoid delusion” and shouldn’t be covered by anyone other than Fox News. It should be carefully quarantined. The graphic behind Maddow read “WHAT YOUR UNCLE WHO WATCHES FOX NEWS ALL DAY IS ALL WORKED UP ABOUT.” Maddow began: “The great Fox News conspiracy about Shirley Sherrod, the racist, that nobody else was covering, was, in fact, a paranoid delusion of the conservative movement and the conservative media machine. And so now, we find ourselves, a couple years later, facing another test for the news media. Do you take the bait again? Do you follow the latest Fox News conspiracy theory?” Actually, if there's a conspiracy, it's at Rachel Maddow's show, not Fox News. And I want to reiterate something I've said many times: Maddow truly is one of the most sinfully malicious hacks on cable TV --- and that's saying a lot, considering the competition on the left. First, on the Shirley Sherrod "conspiracy," see William Jacobson, " Saturday Night Card Game (Repeat after me: “The Shirley Sherrod tape was not misleading”)." The tape wasn't misleading, so Maddow's typical left-wing claim of "conspiracy" is bogus. Second, Maddow claims that "Fast and Furious" was all about conservatives screaming that the Obama administration was going to take away their guns. She calls it a "cockamamie conspiracy theory" and then highlights [Sipsey Street Irregulars blogger] Michael Vanderboegh from Alabama [as if he's some kind of prototypical right-wing loon]. Yeah, that's the Maddow model: the extreme-right is populated with birthers, militia-men, and gun rights cuckoos. All the rest is just a hoax. There is no "Fast and Furious" scandal. It was cooked up by the right to create fear that guns were going to be taken away. The only problem? Well, it's the Democrats who claimed it was all about guns, U.S. guns and gun shops. These were the source of the Mexico drug cartel crisis, and the thousands of people murdered south of the border were victims of the "90 percent" of weapons that originated in America. Who said that? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama, for starters. According to Katie Pavlich, in her new book, Fast and Furious, the Obama administration claimed that "90 percent" of the guns in Mexico came from America. Pavlich highlights a 2009 Andrea Mitchell interview with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Asked what the U.S. was going to do about assault weapons being sold to Mexican drug cartels, short of new legislation banning high-power automatic weapons. Clinton said: We're going to start tracing these guns, we're going to start cracking down on illegal gun sales, and we're going to go after the straw men and women who go in and buy these guns. ... We're going to use every tool at our disposal... That exchange is at the clip, at 4:00 minutes: