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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (100560)	2/15/2005 10:00:29 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793696

I just googled "global warming" and this link from NPR is the first thing at the top of the page: "Three Views on Global Warming Research, and Life Experiences, Put Scientists at Odds There's a sharp difference of opinion among scientists about global warming and the risks it may pose. A few scientists say scenarios of rapid climate change are unwarranted. But others are worried that rising levels of carbon dioxide could trigger a sharp and painful change in the Earth's climate. Scientists are influenced by the way they interpret data, but also by their broader world views." npr.org

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (100560)	2/15/2005 11:01:42 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793696

Listed below are 17,200 of the initial signers oism.org During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition. oism.org Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals)http://www.oism.org/pproject/a_sci.htm who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate. Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life. Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition. Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist. The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition's organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project. The signatures and the text of the petition stand alone and speak for themselves. These scientists have signed this specific document. They are not associated with any particular organization. Their signatures represent a strong statement about this important issue by many of the best scientific minds in the United States. This project is titled "Petition Project" and uses a mailing address of its own because the organizers desired an independent, individual opinion from each scientist based on the scientific issues involved - without any implied endorsements of individuals, groups, or institutions. oism.org

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (100560)	2/15/2005 12:29:51 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793696

<<Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.>> It think that the piece you posted covers the angles on this. I'm going to parse this last paragraph out of sequence. <<But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.>> Civilization is affecting climate. I believe that this is a generally accepted and true statement. There's been a lot of work done on the effects of greenhouse gasses and other crap in the atmosphere. And it's pretty elementary that cutting down the world's trees affects climate. <<Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics.>> This is important. We may know about greenhouse gasses and trees but we don't know enough about climate. Climate is an extraordinarily complex system. We don't begin to know how all these factors work together, particularly in the out years. <<The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. >> Here we go. We don't know what will happen. We don't know if what will happen will be good or bad or if we should care at all. And we don't know what we could do about it if we knew what will happen and why we should care. <<Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.>> This is the religion part. The oracle has spoken and we must give offerings to the climate gods. Folks on both sides run those four elements together. You have nuts on the left that go from greenhouse gas accumulation to Henny Penny to asceticsim in the blink of an eye and a genuflection. You have nuts on the right who deny human effects because to acknowledge them is that's just too grey for them or too much like appeasement. Seems to me, Mary, that you're tying yourself up arguing over the first point, the human effects, where the sides are irrevocably dug in. I think it's more useful to focus on point three, why does it matter. The closest thing to an answer in that piece is "but our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it." Not letting down our grandchildren is a most worthwhile motivator. But shouldn't we first know down from what?