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: LindyBill who wrote (100744)	2/16/2005 11:40:03 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793712

Absolutely terrific article on global warming from The New Scientist. I absolutely agree. Where does this leave us? Actually, with a surprising degree of consensus about the basic science of global warming - at least among scientists. As science historian Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego, wrote in Science late last year (vol 306, p 1686): "Politicians, economists, journalists and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect." But even if you accept (sic the) sceptical view of how science is done, it doesn't mean the orthodoxy is always wrong. We know for sure that human activity is influencing the global environment, even if we don't know by how much. We might still get away with it: the sceptics could be right, and the majority of the world's climate scientists wrong. It would be a lucky break. But how lucky do you feel?

To: LindyBill who wrote (100744)	2/16/2005 11:58:50 AM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 793712

According to Crichton, this one is being debunked. First, there are many more than 928 papers on the subject. Second, the 928 do NOT represent a consensus. Stay tuned for more on this. As science historian Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego, wrote in Science late last year (vol 306, p 1686): "Politicians, economists, journalists and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect." Her review of all 928 peer-reviewed papers on climate change published between 1993 and 2003 showed the consensus to be real and near universal.

To: LindyBill who wrote (100744)	2/16/2005 12:01:38 PM
From: Volsi Mimir	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793712

Here's a couple of catastrophe's to add to the list: (but can't be politically manipulated) Earth’s Core in a Bottle Message 21042668 Cascadia earthquakes 9.0 from Calf- to WA and BC en.wikipedia.org oh yeah everyone knows about natural nuclear reactors: Message 21042713 I wonder if that changed or mutated living stuff around it-- look where its located. And the obvious questions about the research: Is the record of gas and elements in the Antarctic a universal standard? in other words what happened in the south pole is the same as Florida or what ever was there. Look we have no snow in the Cascade Mtns..... one thousand years from now somebody digs up this and says a drought across the world happened because this occurred. Isn't that what is shown. If one area is dry, another wet, one clean another polluted....one stabe another volcanic and shook, even the ocean levels in different areas are different. WWII raped blasted burned the lands, created industrial expansion and what -- it got colder? huh? and look from the same site (New Scientist): New trees cancel out air pollution cuts Message 20858768 We are DOOMED...............