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: Sam who wrote (16648)	10/4/2007 7:42:33 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 36921

New advances in science don't get produced by concensus. Fair enough. But when you get a lot of data points that make sense using a theory about CO2 and GW The thing that makes sense is that CO2 functions as a greenhouse gas. Therefore increasing it should have some warming effect. That I will agree on. However the significance remains to be seen. The AGW movement is claiming the effect will be catastrophic and is using that to push legislation which will drastically change our economy and way of life. , and you get what is it now 8 out of 10 of the hottest years on record in the last decade or so I suggest looking at that again: "NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. " Message 23780818 and you get sightings of Arctic waters that have never been seen before I don't think "never" is accurate. There have been variations in Arctic ice cover over the centuries. and unprecedented glacial melts in various parts of the world There have been glacial advances and melts in places like the Alps over the last couple thousand years, so I think "unprecedented" there is wrong too. then you don't just dismiss that stuff (and more) as hype and hysteria any more than a miner would dismiss a dead canary. I don't think we should dismiss anything. But we need to study it without a bias much more. "When I listen to the public debates about climate change, I am impressed by the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories. Many of the basic processes of planetary ecology are poorly understood. They must be better understood before we can reach an accurate diagnosis of the present condition of our planet. When we are trying to take care of a planet, just as when we are taking care of a human patient, diseases must be diagnosed before they can be cured. We need to observe and measure what is going on in the biosphere, rather than relying on computer models." Freeman Dyson me: Science proceeds cautiously." you: I don't see the AGW proceding cautiously.... AGW looks like more of a marketing campaign or evangelistic religion than careful science. That is only because you haven't been looking The first IPCC report came out about 1990. There have been two more now, and only in the last one did they say that there is a high probability that human activity is causing the CO2 buildup that is causing GW. But then, I think it is you that thinks that the IPCC is a UN fraud, don't you? I do think the IPCC summary is a fraud. Not necessarily all the detailed science underlying it. But its not true the IPCC summary released is the product of thousands of scientists - its produced by a handful of politicized "lead authors". Message 23839642 I'm so arrogant and silly for thinking that the IPCC report written by several thousand scientists around the world represents state of the art science. No, neolib and wharf rat are arrogant, you're just being influenced by the appeal to authority. BTW only a handful of authors write the IPCC summary report. The thousands of scientists have nothing to do with writing the report.