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: Wharf Rat who wrote (226420)	4/8/2007 9:46:44 AM
From: neolib	Respond to of 281500

You have a lot of misplaced faith in Crichton. He's a science fiction writer. Crichton is an MD. You should look at how numerous MD's weigh in on the Creation/Evolution debate. Crichton is playing from the same book wrt to global warming. Same tactics, same nonsense.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (226420)	4/8/2007 12:07:56 PM
From: Suma	Respond to of 281500

Michael Crichton is a graduate of the high school where I taught. He went to Harvard for a medical degree.He became a Doctor Then he moved into FICTION writing.. The global warming issue has problems enough without a fiction writer taking up the cause against it. If a book sells.. by diggy dog... print anything. e.g. Ann Coulter.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (226420)	4/8/2007 2:24:35 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Wigley has subsequently warned that his analysis 'assumed that Kyoto was followed to 2010, and that there were no subsequent climate mitigation policies.' The point of the paper was not to bash Kyoto (which goes into effect internationally on February 16) but rather to demonstrate that it represents only a first step toward climate stabilization. 'Once we've done Kyoto we're obviously going to do other things,' says Wigley. Just for an obvious point, nobody is following Kyoto, not even its signatories, and by the treaty's own admission, it would hardly make a measurable difference if everybody followed Kyoto. If the world wanted to do something sensible, it would concentrate on trying figure out the local effects of climate change and spend the money adapting to them. But that would mean the models would have to be good enough to predict local climate change, and they are obviously not. I can believe that there is a greenhouse effect, and that manmade co2 is adding to it. But everytime I look for proof of how much of the current warming is manmade (since we are obviously in a warming trend anyway), I start hearing about consensus instead of evidence. If there was evidence, they would present it. If the models could show the effects in New York specifically, they would do so. The science just isn't there. Since climate is a chaotic system perhaps it can never be there. My belief is that within 30 years, this scare will have worn itself out and people will have moved on to some new scare. If it does get a little warmer, people will be going, so what? it's mostly helpful anyway.