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: Eric who wrote (45029)	12/20/2013 10:08:08 PM
From: Bearcatbob	1 Recommendation Recommended By TimF Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

"• This headline on this article was amended on 21 December 2013 to reflect that not all the $1bn referred to will have funded climate change work." "It was not always possible to separate funds designated strictly for climate-change work from overall budgets, Brulle said. “Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities.” What crap Eric!

To: Eric who wrote (45029)	12/20/2013 10:11:57 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 86355

Too bad its not $2 Billion

To: Eric who wrote (45029)	12/21/2013 9:05:47 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 86355

Eric, Spending a billion to work against communists who politically wish to spend other people money for some fraudulent AGW dishonest, delusional, demented, dumb debunked speculations is indeed money well spend. PV, solar, wind and electric vehicles are all currently communist enterprises. Now would work in American Free Enterprise. All are based upon taxing some to allow others to use non cost effective products or services.

To: Eric who wrote (45029)	12/21/2013 6:08:17 PM
From: Maurice Winn	3 Recommendations Recommended By Hawkmoon miraje TimF Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

That's a fake photo Eric. <<A coal fired plant. Photograph: John Giles/PA >> It's not in China, because the sky is blue. It's not in Europe, USA, Canada, NZ, Oz or most places because they don't allow smoke up the smoke-stack these days. They require flue gas desulphurisation and particulate traps so that only water, CO2 and nitrogen/NOX come out the top. Also, even if that black was actually soot, it is not properly dispersed through the plume so that shows that it's black painted onto a white image. With a very thick cloud of pure water, as in a thundercloud, the cloud can be so dark it's pretty well black, but those clouds of water droplets are far too black. The image has obviously been darkened until the cloud was black, like the chimney. If the drops of water were in fact soot as implied, then the top-most drops would also be black, not white as shown there. Soot doesn't turn white because it's at the top edge of the column of smoke. Here is a photo of the smoke coming out of a giant power station in Auckland. Look at all that awful black stuff. In fact it's just clouds of water in the sky. Here's another one that looks like a huge bush fire over Australia: No, it's not bush fire smoke. It's just more clouds of water in the sky. Why do the Global Alarmists need to be so dishonest? When people are dishonest in trying to make a case, it's obviously because the actual facts don't support their arguments. Because they are dishonest in one or several ways, we assume they are dishonest in many or all ways and therefore ignore them. Climategate was the big proof of their dishonesty. Mann Made Warming describes the physics of Global Alarmism very well. Here is what actual smoke looks like: Mqurice