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: Lou Weed who wrote (252336)	12/26/2007 12:43:02 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The majority of climate scientists agree on a), b) and c). That's my point Nadine According to the UN IPCC they do, but I'm beginning to have my doubts, because of what I hear from the scientists themselves. I think the level of certainly being professed is far higher than the actual level of certainty. It's clear there has been warming; it's clear that a greenhouse effect exists (we wouldn't have a habitable planet without it); it's clear that raising CO2 levels might increase the effect - but beyond this point you begin to depend entirely on computer models. And the models don't model the whole climate, which is chaotic. They make lots and lots of simplifying assumptions. They add arbitrary parameters to fit the model to historical data. There is really no way to verify them. (They don't even agree with each other.) You can't do a controlled experiment that duplicates the climate, just little pieces of it. That doesn't get you very far when the whole climate is full of tightly coupled feedback loops. What I hear from the scientists loud and clear that anyone who wants to get funding had better profess himself a believer in dangerous anthropogenic global warming. If he has doubts about the reliability of the models, he had better keep them to himself. This is where you're so wrong. The green movement in Europe is so much more powerful than it is here. Their representation in government is significant enough to the point that these goals can no longer be lip service. Its happening today as we speak (or write)..... That's precisely why signing onto to Kyoto was such a tempting deal for Euro politicians - instant reward but far off payment. As the day of payment (and real pain) draws nearer things should get interesting....they haven't been following the treaty so far...

To: Lou Weed who wrote (252336)	12/26/2007 1:30:21 PM
From: Bearcatbob	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Bobby Jones, You completely miss the point on the issue - as does Nadine to some extent. The point is simple - if GW is caused by man kind - then it is going to happen - plain and simple. All the wind and solar power in the world is noise around the edge of the issue. The only realistic way to make a difference is with nuclear power - and the same powerful green forces you reference stand firmly in the way of that. Canada signed Kyoto - and the oil sands development proceeds. Germany signed Kyoto and they are shutting down nukes. China and India did not signup for caps and are building power plants apace. The alarmists say the tipping point is near - well - then it is coming. Don't be surprised if nothing happens. Algore rants and raves about GW - lives in a huge house and flies in private jets - and pays his company to offset himself. Do you for one minute think he lives his life like a crisis is at hand. I challenge you and all other GW adherents to show a numerical way that Kyoto - or anything like it - can be achieved. IF GW IS MANMADE - IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN - PERIOD.