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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (135937)	6/23/2012 10:52:35 AM
From: longnshort	5 Recommendations Respond to of 224769

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: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (135937)	6/23/2012 11:01:22 AM
From: longnshort	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224769

what is wrong with your president ? why is he afraid of latinos ? Forkless Friday at Obama event LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. --Does a fork or dinner knife pose an unacceptable danger to President Barack Obama? One wouldn’t think so, given the hundreds of lunches and dinners he’s attended ranging from state dinners to political fundraisers to run-of-the-mill stops on the rubber-chicken circuit. However, at one such lunch Friday afternoon, guests heard an unusual announcement that they needed to hand over their silverware for security reasons. “It’s very important that you use your utensils as soon as possible,” National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials board member Raquel Regalado told about 1000 delegates at the group’s annual conference. ( Also on POLITICO: Obama blames GOP for playing politics on immigration) Regalado hurried the diners to finish up their salads and pre-cut chicken breasts, saying that the Secret Service required that there be no knives at the tables and that the forks be rounded up before Obama entered the room. “As you know, we’re having another speaker and there is some Secret Service involved. So there’s a reason why there’s no knives at your table and the forks will be collected. ... And I’m not joking,” Regalado told the audience in a ballroom at Disney’s Contemporary Resort at Walt Disney World. “So, like the good Hispanic mother I’m here to tell you to please, eat your lunch.” A Secret Service spokesman confirmed that the agency made the request, but said such requirements are common at large events where the president speaks at about the same time people are dining. “The Secret Service coordinates this process with staff and host committee to ensure tables are cleared of material that may be deemed hazardous prior to the arrival of the president,” Special Agent Max Milien told POLITICO. "Any implication that this was unique for this event is completely inaccurate." In other words, the announcement at the Latino officials’ event may have been unusual, but the removal of the silverware usually takes place without anyone realizing it’s a security measure. Still, there are a wide variety of breakfasts, lunches and dinners the president attends where diners still have the full complement of silverware as Obama speaks. Milien declined to comment on the discrepancy. However, it’s known that the Secret Service adjusts security depending on the size of the crowd and how much officials know about who’s in attendance. At some events, guests must pass through magnetometers. At others, they don’t. The Service usually doesn’t worry too much about impromptu stops where a potential assailant would have no reason to expect the president. Sometimes the president’s attendance at sporting events is kept secret until the last minute to avoid having to perform security checks on every fan. Indeed, there is plenty of silverware at large events like the White House Correspondents Dinner. However, those on the dais are well known to the White House and Obama does not plunge into the crowd there. After the speech Friday, Obama spent about six minutes shaking hands along a so-called ropeline in front of the crowd.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (135937)	6/23/2012 1:02:09 PM
From: longnshort	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224769

7th Democrat Won’t Attend Party Convention Due to Prior Commitment to Re-Arranging Sock Drawer If Dems up for re-election keep jumping from the sinking ship like this, by the time the convention rolls around they’ll be able to hold it in my garage… not that I’d let them. From The Hill: Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) will skip the Democratic National Convention, making him the latest in a string of conservative Democrats to take a pass on the party confab. “I’ll be spending my time this summer and fall doing my job in Congress and visiting with and listening to people in Utah,” Matheson told The Daily. “I won’t be traveling to North Carolina.” Matheson is running in the most heavily Republican district of any Democrat in the House — the newly drawn district would have given President Obama just 41 percent of its vote in 2008. He’s routinely broken with his party, voting against their healthcare reforms as well as climate change legislation, though he’s said he’ll vote for Obama in the fall. [...] He’s the seventh Democratic officeholder to say he won’t attend the convention. Others include West Virginia Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin (D), Sen. Joe Manhin (D-W.Va.), and Reps. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), Mark Critz (D-Pa.), Kathy Hochul (D-N.Y.) and Bill Owens (D-N.Y.). At this rate, what are the odds that Obama ends up skipping Obama’s convention?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (135937)	6/23/2012 1:50:18 PM
From: lorne	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224769

kenny..."Companies’ Ills Did Not Harm Romney’s Firm The deals were structured in a way that Bain always made money even if the companies went under. Fees charged by Bain were the reason.".... Ya know something kenny..that statement should make it very clear to any intelligent person why you commies are never successful at business or government. Should it be structured in such a way that Bain should lose money? Duh... How could Bain be of use to any company that is facing bankruptcy if they are structured to lose money?