SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : The Environmentalist Thread
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: maceng2 who wrote (19746)1/21/2008 10:48:35 AM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 36921
 
I find it deeply disturbing that science is not a driving factor in evaluation of environmental impacts.

I don't understand the comment. It certainly is a driving factor in evaluation of environmental impacts. Perhaps not the only one (in if your talking about the impact on people it shouldn't be the only one) but that doesn't mean that the evaluation has little to do with science.

What I find truly preposterous is the concept pushed forward by Ross McKitrick and others that only American and other suitably "advanced civilizations" (what a joke) can make accurate measurements of temperature and other environmental variables.

It may or may not be preposterous, but its also a fantasy on your point. No one is saying that only America and a few other countries know how to measure temperature. The claim is rather that the data from some other areas are faulty or uncertain. I'd add that there is problems with some of the American and other "advanced" nation's temperature data as well.

Now data with some holes in it, or with some uncertainties, isn't necessarily useless data, and doesn't amount to reason to support denial, but it does amount to a situation where skepticism is reasonable.

Getting back to my points that you never really responded to I don't see how these questions about human impact on climate amount to anything like denial -

1 - Exactly how much of an effect does it have?

2 - How large is this effect compared to natural causes/changes, some cyclic, some not, some fairly well understood, some not so well understood?

3 - How much do different human activities lead to global warming and cooling, and how much could new activities or expansion of old ones lead to warming or cooling? Assuming we on the net contribute a warming effect, could we do something that would provide a cooling effect to counteract this warming effect.

4 - How linear is the direct warming effect from our emitting CO2 or other greenhouse gases?

5 - How linear is the indirect effect or feedback caused by our CO2 emissions. What other factors are casued by more CO2, or more probably a warmer atmosphere that contribute to or counteract warming?

6 - How will the absorption of CO2 in natural sinks change going forward?

7 - If we are getting warmer from human emission of CO2 what's effect will it have? (Consider both positive and negative effects)

Message 24191165
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News