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: Wharf Rat who wrote (906600)	12/9/2015 3:47:29 AM
From: Sdgla	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572899

Greenpeace head : There's an opening down in Venezuela for you n Bernie rat. Seems they've tossed out a few socialists that have run the country into the rathole.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (906600)	12/11/2015 7:06:20 AM
From: POKERSAM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572899

You religious fanatics/zealots do get worked up don't you? I am sure you think Greenpeace is a reliable source without bias or skin in the game. LOL Give me a break. "Reacting to the sting at the UN climate talks in Paris, US secretary of state John Kerry was dismissive of the impact of such paid-for work. “One professor or one scientist is not going to negate peer-reviewed scientists by the thousands over many years and 97% of the scientists on the planet,” he said." I have news for you Climate Change wackos. Scientific truth is not established by the ballot box. If it was we would still be living in the Dark Ages. You are confused about which side of this argument you are on. The scientist who are being steamrolled and demonized by the McCarthy like establishment are the ones who deny Man Made Global Warming. Your article points out that peer review of a supposed scientific paper is a sham. Also, in an email exchange with the fake business representative, Happer acknowledges that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal – the gold-standard process for quality scientific publication whereby work is assessed by anonymous expert reviewers. “I could submit the article to a peer-reviewed journal, but that might greatly delay publication and might require such major changes in response to referees and to the journal editor that the article would no longer make the case that CO2 is a benefit, not a pollutant, as strongly as I would like, Submit a report that doesn't walk the party line and it does not pass peer-review by anonymous expert reviewers. We used to joke about recognized experts in various fields. A group gathers for the purpose of recognizing each other as experts.. Once that has occurred they are henceforth know as "recognised experts in their chosen field." You wish to assume Happer was lying. I assume he was telling the truth. "William Happer My activities to push back against climate extremism are a labor of love, to defend the cherished ideals of science that have been so corrupted by the climate change cult,” he wrote in an email." Why do I believe him? A labor of love is the only viable reason for submitting himself to the McCarthy like attacks of the Climate Gestapo. Finally, is it your contention that Climate Change advocates in the scientific community are not financially supported by those who are likeminded or stand to profit from an acceptance of Climate Change as reality? If that is your contention it goes beyond being naive to being stupid.