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: gronieel2 who wrote (933298)	5/4/2016 11:53:25 AM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 1573203

I agree....does not get much worse that Rat....(well maybe an impotent loser stuck in a government hack show up job could be worse).

To: gronieel2 who wrote (933298)	5/4/2016 11:54:20 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 1573203

Was he the liar for bankrupt Peabody Coal? We also showed that the experts for Peabody relied extensively on non-peer-reviewed reports, blog sites, and think tanks to support their conclusions (paragraph 359 in the report). The peer-reviewed scientific literature is the best source for accurate climate science information. In other areas, the Peabody experts used scientific papers that we showed were incorrect (paragraph 360 in the report, for example). Perhaps the key findings are best articulated in the judicial conclusions, which begin on page 114. Among the conclusions are: 22. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Peabody failed to demonstrate that an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1 or 1.5°C is correct. 23. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the climate sensitivity is reasonably considered to be in the 2-4.5°C range. 47. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Peabody failed to demonstrate that the relied upon process is neither peer-reviewed nor transparent. Message 30565651