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 (1122432)	3/3/2019 2:04:35 PM
From: Winfastorlose	1 Recommendation Recommended By Mick Mørmøny Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575481

It is not a scientific proof. It is a scientific fraud.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1122432)	3/3/2019 2:27:56 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	2 Recommendations Recommended By i-node Mick Mørmøny Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575481

Well, the presentation proves with certainty that Neil deGrasse Tyson is dumber than a bag of hammers in science comprehension or a generic lying sack of bovine excrement. It is one or the other. There is no equation, no V=IR relationship showing what percent of warming is caused by what percent of CO2. There is also no V=IR relationship showing what percent of CO2 is from human activities. But there are equations showing how increased CO2 increases biomass creation. So on land during the day plants will transform more solar energy into biomass instead that energy simply heating all matter that absorbs it. And increased biomass is good for all living things, except idiots who live in dry areas in biomass tinderboxes. And there is all manner of analysis showing the regulation of the Earth's average temperature is regulated by emergent phenomena. Tyson is an actor talking the talk who as far as I know has never done any real science. Willis, on the other hand, is a carpenter who is doing real science.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1122432)	3/3/2019 2:38:33 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By Mick Mørmøny Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575481

>> Now it's a scientific truth. You've come to believe that based on pseudo-science. I don't find Tyson to be a compelling figure in science. It is part of the problem. We don't have the kind of scientists we had 30, 40, 50 years ago. The Feynmans, Dysons, Bethes are pretty much all gone (not Dyson, who is about 95). What we have now are pseudo scientists -- many who have never conducted real science. Particularly, those in climate science where there is no meaningful experimentation going on -- everything is computer models and correlation. Life isn't linear.