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 : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rock_nj who wrote (6487)	5/24/2006 12:21:12 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

That is your version of history. I am sure that it is true for you. I chose to process the inputs of the current crop of "scientific" chicken littles. If their science withstands rigorous peer review I will give it more weight. Their behavior toward the sceptics is similar to others who have serious doubt about the ability of their work to stand scrutiny. I choose to see this, and use it as data input.

To: Rock_nj who wrote (6487)	5/29/2006 10:13:34 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 36917

The global cooling myth Filed under: Climate Science Paleoclimate Greenhouse gases Instrumental Record FAQ— william @ 5:31 am - () Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling" surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say "in the 1970's all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn't stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though. I should clarify that I'm talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we're only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try wmconnolley.org.uk. more realclimate.org