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 (126199)	12/14/2016 2:00:43 PM
From: Sdgla	Respond to of 217542

Overjoyed to read you sticking to the same meme(s) that has failed to sway anyone for the last 12 election cycles koan. The climate will never stop changing and life on our little blue planet will continue to adapt.... Or not. Keep it going.

To: koan who wrote (126199)	12/14/2016 3:23:58 PM
From: bart13	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217542

Consensus Concerns about Hillary Clinton's health are "serious -- could be disqualifying for the position of President of the U.S.,( prnewswire.com )" say nearly 71% of 250 physicians responding to an informal internet survey by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). About 20% said concerns were "likely overblown, but should be addressed as by full release of medical records." Only 2.7% responded that they were "just a political attack; I have confidence in the letter from her physician and see no cause for concern." While more than 81% were aware of her history of a concussion, only 59% were aware of the cerebral sinus thrombosis, and 52% of the history of deep venous thrombosis. More than 78% said the health concerns had received "not enough emphasis" in the media, and only 2.7% that there had been "too much emphasis." Nearly two-thirds said that a physician who had a concern about a candidate's fitness to serve for health reasons should "make the concerns known to the public." Only 11% said a physician should "keep silent unless he had personally examined the patient," and 10% that the candidate's health was "off limits for public discussion." A poll of 833 randomly selected registered voters by Gravis Marketing showed that nearly half (49%) were not aware of the "well documented major health issues that Hillary Clinton has." Nearly three-fourths (74%) were unaware of Bill Clinton's statement that Hillary suffered a "terrible" concussion requiring "six months of very serious work to get over." The majority (57%) thought that candidates should release their medical records. ------------------------------------------------------ Greenland used to be green skepticalscience.com ------------------------------------------------------ UN climate chief candidly admits goal is not to help environment but to end capitalism from Investor’s Business Daily: At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said. Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.” poorrichardsnews.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here are some comments from some of your fellow travellers on the extreme left ! These are the predictions made on the first earth day in 1970. Didn’t believe them then, don’t believe them now . . . 1.”Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” — Harvard biologist George Wald 2.”We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner 3.”Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” — New York Times editorial 4.”Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich 5.”Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” — Paul Ehrlich 6.”It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scientific theories must make predictions by which they can be tested. Providing evidence that AGW has failed in its predictions is not cherry picking, it is refutation. Unfortunately, when confronted with failed predictions the standard alarmist answer is to disavow the predictions. They will say that those are not predictions at all, they are projections—and that means AGW is not a scientific theory at all.” And this: “Returning to the subject of proving or disproving the theory of anthropogenic global warming, there are only three possibilities here: AGW makes no predictions and hence is not a scientific theory; AGW depends on vague feedback mechanisms that must be constantly reinterpreted, making AGW a very weak theory and scientifically useless; or the predictions made by climate scientists about the effects of AGW are just that, predictions, and if those predictions can be shown to not be true then AGW is a false theory.” ---------------------- Problems with AGW temperature measurement youtu.be ---------------------- It has been colder (4th and 5th Century; Little Ice Age) and warmer (Roman Warm, Viking Era) than now in historical times, all well before the Industrial Revolution. The hockey stick is a contrived falsehood. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where did this 97 percent figure come from? When you explore the lineage of this cliché, it appears about as convincing as a North Korean election. Most footnotes point to a paper published last year by Prof. John Cook of the University of Queensland, which purported to have reviewed the abstracts of over 11,000 climate science articles. But the abstract of Cook’s paper actually refutes the talking point: "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW [anthropogenic global warming], 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus." weeklystandard.com iopscience.iop.org ------------- 97.1% of the 33.6% who endorsed AGW and had a position on it (66.4% expressed no AGW position), the actual non spun "consensus" is 32.63% - not even one out of three! The Cone head goes down in flames yet again, having been proven to be a math incompetent, spin worshipper and wrong once again... as usual.

To: koan who wrote (126199)	12/17/2016 8:47:42 AM
From: Pogeu Mahone	3 Recommendations Recommended By abuelita bruiser98 Follies Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217542

I agree humans are causing global warming because there are at least 2 times too many of us on earth! Maybe 3 or 4 times too many of us for the earth to sustain. So adding another 2.5 billion people in the next 30 years assures disaster no matter how much CO2 is cut. What can be done about the population bomb? You are Against science as you ignore the real causes...