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 (45061)	12/21/2013 9:41:30 PM
From: Bearcatbob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

Eric, You post it - you own it. You posted it to make a point. My bet is you wish you had not. One of the key things that make me disregard AGW is the amount of lies that are used to sell it. You or others may actually believe it - but I submit the data you rely on is suspect to say the very least. From the days of Watergate the term "follow the money" has rung true. You in your post tried to use that concept - the reality is that the true money is in supporting the fraud. When your side of the argument stops manipulating data and suppressing alternate thought you might become worthy of a listen. Until then - everything about the AGW crowd yells FRAUD! Bob PS: How often have you seen a plume of steam from a stack used as an example of pollution. It is all lies to fool the ignorant. I will not attribute the fraud to you - but I do question your analytical skills. And BTW - the link I gave you was not a "very funny reading" - it was an audio.

To: Eric who wrote (45061)	12/22/2013 3:51:06 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 86355

Eric, you posted it in agreement with it. You were either ignorant about the "soot" or dishonest. Since you are avoiding simply writing "Oh, yes, I see what you mean Mq", it is evident that it was dishonesty, not ignorance. <So, let's try again to see how dishonest you are. Do you agree that that chimney exhaust was not in fact black due to smoke but was white due to water droplets, and showed black due only to dishonest manipulation of the image? Do you think that there was actual soot in the "smoke"? > Easy questions. No answer. You running [as expected] shows, yet again, dishonesty on the part of Global Alarmists. You don't understand it, but that's why the Global Doomsters are losing their gushers of cash and have made no headway on getting people to agree to back politicians wanting to grab loads of loot to solve "the problem". CO2 doomsterism is a lost cause. Dishonesty is not necessary for causes based on truth. Frauds need dishonesty. You claiming this is soot is dishonest. That's why you [and Global Alarmists in general] are disbelieved by the public. Actual real scientists don't need to paint mice or colour clouds. They accept actual data as it really is. Mqurice