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: neolib who wrote (19432)	1/8/2008 12:27:08 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36921

The 'Inhofe 400' Skeptic of the Day Today: Christopher Castro Posted by Andrew Dessler at 3:45 PM on 07 Jan 2008 In previous editions of the "Inhofe 400," we found one skeptic whose only qualification for being a "climate expert" was to have written an op-ed and another who argues that climate change must not be happening because God would never allow it. We also found some economists who don't seem to doubt that humans are causing the climate to change. Today's "skeptic," Prof. Christopher L. Castro, is a bonafide atmospheric scientist, so he clearly has relevant expertise on his resume. I emailed Prof. Castro about being on this list, and he replied: Since I'm asked about this often, my "official" position on global warming is given in my series of lectures I present in NATS 101 (accessible via my website link). You are free to quote my position from that if you like. I went on his website and found these quotes from this lecture (MS PowerPoint file, slides 3 and 4): Conclusion of 2007 IPCC: It is very likely (90 percent) that anthropogenic activities have caused the observed warming over the past fifty years Your professor's opinion The conclusion of the 2007 IPCC is reasonable given the paleoclimate record, the available empirical evidence from the observed climate record, and agreement with global model results simulating the climate of the past 100 years. Hmm. Doesn't look like a skeptic to me. Another one bites the dust. It's enough to make you wonder whether Inhofe is making an honest argument. gristmill.grist.org

To: neolib who wrote (19432)	1/12/2008 4:02:48 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

"without even bothering to a) understand the content, b) figure out who is producing it and why." I understand what is driving you. the entire GW religion is a way to work socialism through the back door. Sorry to spoil your fun. Are you part of the conspiracy or just a pawn? Is it coincidence that the same "scientists" that were spreading panic over the coming ice age in the 1970's are now part of the GW conspiracy group? My favorite fact is that the totally dicsredited woprk of Mann is the basis for virtually every "scientific" study "proving" manmade GW. Keep posting the science fiction articles. Maybe some day they will come true.

To: neolib who wrote (19432)	1/13/2008 10:56:48 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 36921

neolib AKA ear2earfeces always speaks of re Al Gore climate.org and seldon links to the URL that it alleges contains some comment. this is a genuine comment, analysis and observation of the collective moron AKA re Al Gore climate.org realclimate.org What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming? The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data. The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.