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: Thomas A Watson who wrote (1002772)	2/27/2017 8:40:13 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572332

" a single qualified name." Just the opposite; it's you who haven't provided a single qualified name.

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (1002772)	2/28/2017 10:48:12 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572332

Do you see any of your "qualified names" here? Peabody coal's contrarian scientist witnesses lose their court case Peabody Energy brought contrarians Spencer, Happer, and Lindzen to testify on their behalf, but the judge wasn’t convinced by their case 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 31003939