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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (844872)	3/24/2015 8:55:48 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 1573005

Michael Mann and Stefan Rahmstorf claim the Gulf Stream is slowing due to Greenland ice melt, except reality says otherwise Anthony Watts Not quite; Michael Mann and Stefan Rahmstorf claim the Gulf Stream is slowing due to Greenland ice melt, except Anthony Watts says otherwise. Watts hasn't been in touch with reality for quite a while.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (844872)	10/29/2015 11:42:31 AM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB jlallen Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573005

The NYT could teach Dr Goebbels a thing or two The NYT has up at the moment a big article by a dear little lady named Coral Davenport (and friends) under the heading: "Greenland Is Melting Away". It's a long article decorated with huge and beautiful pictures so one might expect a lot of it. Coral is a twit But Coral presents zero proof that Greenland Is Melting Away. Instead she salivates over a group of "scientists" travelling to Greenland to take "measurements". The only actual statement she makes about Greenland overall is "The full melting of Greenland’s ice sheet could increase sea levels by about 20 feet". Maybe it could, though she gives no calculations or proof, but the interesting thing about the claim is that she doesn't say when or how long that will take. In fact she goes on to say that nobody knows that and that the scientists she adulates are there to take measurements that might answer the question. The answer could be "1,000 years" for all we know -- and for all that the NYT tells us So the whole thing is just a glossy bit of unusually brainless propaganda. But it's the sort of propaganda that Leftists need to prop up their sagging hypothesis about global warming.