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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (119927)	6/6/2016 10:19:31 PM
From: bart13	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217561

Let's say the chances of the atmospheric scientists being correct was only 10%. Would that not be a large enough danger considering the implications that we should be on full red alert? No , because I doubt that it's anywhere near as high as 10%. And I also remember how gullible I was when I was in school to false "sciences".

To: koan who wrote (119927)	6/6/2016 11:52:11 PM
From: abuelita	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217561

koan, enough with your son-in-law already. i mean, really. so you think you have an inside track. bully for you. but for me, i don't know your son-in-law from beans and what you say he knows, means absolutely nothing to me. ziltch - nada - zero - nothing. maybe if you started posting when you are not high i/we might take you more seriously.

To: koan who wrote (119927)	6/7/2016 12:37:30 AM
From: GPS Info	Respond to of 217561

I have been meaning to mention this: My college friend has a brother-in-law who is also an atmospheric chemist (PhD) working (worked?) at NOAA's Earth Systems Research Laboratory in Boulder, CO. Twenty years ago he already accepted global warming as a fact. My friend made the stock reply about scientists wanting continued funding for their research. I asked his wife if her brother got any more money based on his findings, and her answer was no. I took her at her word. I could probably ask for more details, assuming he is still working. More and more people are accepting GW, but there is still a ton of doubt about AGW. You don't have to look far to find it.<g>

To: koan who wrote (119927)	6/7/2016 1:50:50 AM
From: Snowshoe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217561

>> Let me put something to you, inasmuch as you have degrees in science and I would guess a good foundation in statistics. Let's say the chances of the atmospheric scientists being correct was only 10%. Would that not be a large enough danger considering the implications that we should be on full red alert? << There are various reasons to develop alternative energy, including: 1) Threat of agw; 2) Pollution (especially from coal); 3) Fuel price instability; 4) Political extortion by petro states; 5) Etc. Right now the alternative energy emphasis is on solar and wind, which both have large footprints on the land. Do you think it makes sense from an agw perspective to cut down forests to make way for solar panels? I don't, but that's the sort of thing that happens when we take the "Manhattan Project" approach... Minn. Solar Project Draws Ire For Cutting Down Hundreds Of Trees minnesota.cbslocal.com I'm hoping that geothermal power will get more attention as a long-term solution. It has the advantage of a steady power output coupled with a smaller footprint, and pairs well with solar and wind... If Tesla’s Gigafactory can run on 100% renewable energy, why can’t others? computerworld.com The factory is also aligned on true north so that solar panels on its roof are exposed to the maximum amount of sunlight possible, Musk said. "This factory will produce its own energy as well. Through a combination of geothermal, wind and solar it will produce all the energy it needs," Musk said. "So it'll be sort of a self-contained factory."