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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katelew who wrote (224282)	3/15/2007 11:39:14 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 281500

One more ruling out the sun... 9 Mar 2007 ‘Cosmoclimatology’ - tired old arguments in new clothes rasmus @ 3:57 am - () In a recent issue of the journal Astronomy and Geophysics (A&G), Henrik Svensmark coined a new term: 'cosmoclimatology' . I think 'cosmoclimatology' is a good and refreshing name for anything combining our cosmos with our climate. However, all other aspects of the article I found very disappointing. We have already covered most of these topics before, but the A&G articles provides us with some new aspects to discuss. Furthermore, Svensmark is the Director for Center for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center, and therefore influential. He is also the co-author of a recent book with Nigel Calder that received some attention. Furthermore, a laboratory experiment of his also managed to make some headlines. It seems that solar forcing is one of the sceptics' last trenches in the debate about climate change. In my view the A&G paper therefore merits a comment as long as the same old and worn arguments resurface without discussing misgivings from the critics. realclimate.org

To: Katelew who wrote (224282)	3/15/2007 1:59:16 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Why then do the majority of scientists reject this as an explanation? I think when you get down to the fine print, the majority of scientists don't reject it so much as think both solar forcing and greenhouse effects are going on. But then, look at the money. It all goes to those who say that the greenhouse effect is predominent and an imminent catastrophe. Those who say different are derided as heretics or in the pay of oil companies. They certainly don't get grant money. The Global Warming Catastrophe has become a huge fund raising racket. That much is clear. What the science is once the politics are cleared away, is much less clear. P.S. I haven't studied the science one way or the other....wouldn't understand it, if I did. I'm pretty open to all explanations, however commonsense suggests there are limits to the earth's abilities to cleanse itself and that there is, indeed, a fine 'balance' of nature. Commonsense is treacherous because it operates on the scale of a human lifetime. Commonsense tells us that the climate is stable, and we know for a fact that this is not true. Climate changes. The Earth is a dynamic system, so much of what is taught to little children about the "balance" of nature isn't true either.

To: Katelew who wrote (224282)	3/15/2007 3:04:58 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

They just held a debate on the motion "Global Warming is Not a Crisis" Wednesday, March 14, 2007 Global warming is not a crisis Intelligence² US audience confirms 46.22% to 42.22% in favor of the motion. Speaking for the motion: Michael Crichton, Richard S. Lindzen, Philip Stott Speaking against the motion: Brenda Ekwurzel, Gavin Schmidt, Richard C.J. Somerville Moderator: Brian Lehrer If anyone can find a report or better, a transcript or recording, I would be very interested in seeing it. As you see, the poll of the audience came out closely divided, slightly favoring the "No Crisis" side. intelligencesquaredus.org