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: tejek who wrote (135423)	4/2/2001 12:21:07 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584266

Why do you think scientists/environmentalists are concerned with the greenhouse effect, particularly as you say, it may not really be a problem? What is their motivation for raising red flags? Because it may be a problem in the future. Also there is a finacial interest from the fact that more money will be put to study the problem if people get scared about it. Also to the extent that it is the most popular view there is always some pressure to conform. You're considered brave and right if you try to "save the world". Even more then with the regular scientists the people who put together the UN global warming report were politically and ideologically biased. They changed the reports highlighting the worst case senaros and makeing everything seem more certain before it was published. Heres a couple of links that dicusses some of the issues I mentioned -http://www.nandotimes.com/newsroom/ntn/health/061896/health15_28652.html mediaresearch.org environment.harvard.edu In 1989, William K. Stevens, science writer for the New York Times observed the development of a "split forecast: dissent on global warming". "As governments try to come to grips with what is widely depicted as a potentially catastrophic warming of the Earth's surface, dissenting scientists are challenging what they see as unnecessarily gloomy predictions" (Stevens, 1989). Stevens reported that there were three groups in the greenhouse debate. Those who believe, in general, that the greenhouse theory is valid, but that uncertainties persist. This group, according to Stevens, was in the majority. In the minority, he reported, were two other groups. "Those who believe global warming to be a clear and definite threat and those who say there is likely to be no significant warming -- appear to be in a minority". Not surprisingly, however, these are the groups that took each other on directly, and marked opposite ends of the political debate, and, despite the minority status claimed by Stevens, they attracted considerable attention. bullatomsci.org Furthermore, some of the more ardent proponents of global warming theories seem to believe that it is somehow inappropriate, if not downright immoral, for any scientist to emphasize the theories' uncertainties. Their argument seems to be that it is better for national governments to do something, however costly (even if it turns out that warming theories are wrong), rather than risk waiting for more certain and persuasive data. It is not surprising that such views are widely held. After all, the public has been exposed to a steady diet of hyped news stories and TV specials and propagandized by environmental pressure groups. However, these views are not shared by all specialists in atmospheric physics or climatology-scientists who actually study these problems. There is no scientific consensus in support of a greenhouse warming threat. A growing number of experts have become concerned that opinion-making and "publication by press release" are being used to influence environmental policy. With momentum building toward the "Earth Summit"-the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro this month-the issue of climate warming has taken center stage. Many scientists have spoken out. Philip Abelson, in a lead editorial in the March 30, 1990, Science, observed that "if [global warming] is analyzed applying the customary standards of scientific inquiry, one must conclude that there has been more hype than solid fact."