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: Steve Lokness who wrote (57308)	8/26/2014 1:29:40 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 86355

Science is about knowing how much vs some know outcome. A one part increase in 10,000 over 100 years is not much. When the dew point is 70% how many parts in 10000 is water vapor. You clearly have no practical experience with science. Recent analysis casts doubts upon how much of that 1 part was anthropogenic in origin. There is no defined confirmed measured science on atmospheric energy absorption relative to CO2 parts per 10,000. It is 100% speculated relations that were coded into simulations. The CO2 factors used could not forcast or hindcast future temperature or past known temperatures. Anyone who knows you see global temps from space and those show no global warming for 17 years and still think the sky is falling are simply ignorant fools. I have been collecting the science for several years. toms.homeip.net It all starts with learning the physics. toms.homeip.net Falsication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Eects Within The Frame Of Physics Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009) replaces Version 1.0 (July 7, 2007) and later Gerhard Gerlich Institut fur Mathematische Physik Technische Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig Mendelssohnstrae 3 D-38106 Braunschweig Federal Republic of Germany g.gerlich@tu-bs.de Ralf D. Tscheuschner Postfach 60 27 62 D-22237 Hamburg Federal Republic of Germany ralfd@na-net.ornl.gov

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (57308)	8/26/2014 8:41:09 AM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Recommended By Thomas A Watson Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

Steve, you glassy eyed ideologues are blinded by your own prejudice. I have seen glaciers melt in my lifetime <The glossy eyed ideologist unwilling to use their own eyes to view the melting of the glaciers will deny the existence of GW -> Fox, Franz Josef and Tasman glaciers are way up the mountains from only 40 years ago. But I have also been in glacial valleys of stupendous size which were filled with vast glaciers not so long ago during the last glaciation and no doubt had a fair bit of snow in them during the Little Ice Age when the Fox, Franz Josef and Tasman glaciers got a big boost downhill from which they have now retreated. I know that GW CC did not cause the glaciers to melt after the last glaciation and did not cause them to melt after the Little Ice Age ended. Possibly there is a bit of melting due to the extra CO2 produced by people but given the failure of the GA [global alarmist] "settled science" computer models [gigo - garbage in garbage out], it's not all all reasonable to think that melting of the glaciers is due to CO2 emissions. You ideologists need to look at actual facts on the ground and in the air temperatures, not your catechism, mantra, sacraments and dogmatic doctrine. Use science, not faith. Mqurice