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: maceng2 who wrote (19746)	1/21/2008 3:40:17 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

Sounds pretty familiar, doesn't it? Even the names are the same. Techniques of the Skeptics Launch a public relations campaign disputing the evidence. Predict dire economic consequences, and ignore the cost benefits. Find and pay a respected scientist to argue persuasively against the threat. Use non-peer reviewed scientific publications or industry-funded scientists who don't publish original peer-reviewed scientific work to support your point of view DOOLITTLE: "Well, you're going to hear from one of the scientists today, Dr. Fred Singer." RIVERS: "Dr. Singer doesn't publish in peer-reviewed documents."

To: maceng2 who wrote (19746)	1/21/2008 10:48:35 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

I find it deeply disturbing that science is not a driving factor in evaluation of environmental impacts. I don't understand the comment. It certainly is a driving factor in evaluation of environmental impacts. Perhaps not the only one (in if your talking about the impact on people it shouldn't be the only one) but that doesn't mean that the evaluation has little to do with science. What I find truly preposterous is the concept pushed forward by Ross McKitrick and others that only American and other suitably "advanced civilizations" (what a joke) can make accurate measurements of temperature and other environmental variables. It may or may not be preposterous, but its also a fantasy on your point. No one is saying that only America and a few other countries know how to measure temperature. The claim is rather that the data from some other areas are faulty or uncertain. I'd add that there is problems with some of the American and other "advanced" nation's temperature data as well. Now data with some holes in it, or with some uncertainties, isn't necessarily useless data, and doesn't amount to reason to support denial, but it does amount to a situation where skepticism is reasonable. Getting back to my points that you never really responded to I don't see how these questions about human impact on climate amount to anything like denial - 1 - Exactly how much of an effect does it have? 2 - How large is this effect compared to natural causes/changes, some cyclic, some not, some fairly well understood, some not so well understood? 3 - How much do different human activities lead to global warming and cooling, and how much could new activities or expansion of old ones lead to warming or cooling? Assuming we on the net contribute a warming effect, could we do something that would provide a cooling effect to counteract this warming effect. 4 - How linear is the direct warming effect from our emitting CO2 or other greenhouse gases? 5 - How linear is the indirect effect or feedback caused by our CO2 emissions. What other factors are casued by more CO2, or more probably a warmer atmosphere that contribute to or counteract warming? 6 - How will the absorption of CO2 in natural sinks change going forward? 7 - If we are getting warmer from human emission of CO2 what's effect will it have? (Consider both positive and negative effects) Message 24191165

To: maceng2 who wrote (19746)	1/21/2008 2:28:22 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 36921

Often many discoveries or new understandings of science are insights gleened by the serendipitus crossing of individual's infomation. One need only read James Burkes connections to see that connection. Now then there is the process or engingeering of the systems to acquire data. Any person who has had any dealing with getting a group to do precise tasks that have calibration back to a common standard knows how difficult the task is. And it's obvious that more advanced nations with more educated indivuals performing the tasks will be more calibrated. I find it truly stupid to not comprehend that. And Ozone is not CO2. With ozone there was a chemistry and observations and CFC were banned. With CO2, the measurements show climate driving CO2 percent for eons. There is no plausible physics to give CO2 the ability to drive climate. All properties of CO2 would lead to minute increased convection of heated air to higher altitudes where the air would radiate heat into space. I read this link and found nothing untoward. antigreen.blogspot.com So one can even see IR temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico at -50 to -60 C 2008@01@19_16h45m.jpg