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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Land Shark who wrote (44951)	12/17/2013 7:19:41 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Recommended By Thomas A Watson Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

The predictions turned out to be false. Therefore there has been no reason to incur costs to solve a problem which does not exist. The CO2 is not only not a problem, it's a huge benefit to crops [and other plants] and therefore to all the life which depends on plants, which is all life. If "The Science" had turned out to provide predictions which worked [which would not necessarily be causal but at least the correlation would suggest the predictions and hypotheses might be true], then doing something about the predictions might make sense. Or might not, depending on the cost. <"What's the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we're willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?"> Meanwhile, why don't we discuss this at the SI Environmental stream? You have killed it off, which suggests your "environmental" credentials might have the same effect on the climate. Being unable to conduct a rational discussion is a major failing of the so-called environmentalists. Being unable to reason is in large part why they lack credibility. Appeals to authority are the norm in environmental "science". That's not reason and is unconvincing. Mqurice

To: Land Shark who wrote (44951)	12/18/2013 8:42:04 AM
From: Blasher	Respond to of 86356

sources! . . excellent !!! thanks. I will spend some time today reading through your information. Thanks! so much . . . I do appreciate it and an intelligent discussion.

To: Land Shark who wrote (44951)	12/18/2013 11:13:24 AM
From: Blasher	Respond to of 86356

OK, I read through and listened to every link that I had access to . . all but my favorite sounding one which needed an account ( many of last week's talks are available for online viewing ) Most of it was to try to prove that most scientists officially say they believe in AGW. I totally agree that is true. It does not matter because I believe scientists are paid to say that and do so to save their jobs. Just like Hollywood actors/actresses say and act like extreme liberals. So, no help forward to proving AGW. The links that did have data in them only went back 10- or 20- years to show rising temperatures. 1 - I've seen charts that show lowering temperatures over the past 13- years. 2 - again, short-term changes do nothing to prove the effect of humans/CO2 on temperature because we can pick another decade or two that shows the opposite . . . I'm looking for some kind of correlation. So . . thanks for the links, but they did nothing for me. In my short 50-year life, the liberals have pushed BOTH sides so very strongly with scientific consensus! When I was a kid in the 1970's it was Global Cooling that was going to destroy the earth within 20-years. 30-years later it is Global Warming that will destroy the earth. BOTH times the only way to save ourselves from destruction was to give more money to the government. BOTH times it was liberals that were pushing this agenda. Therefore, I do NOT believe in AGW. Seriously . . you should want more for yourself before standing so strongly behind a belief. .