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: greenspirit who wrote (20222)	2/11/2008 12:16:06 AM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

As I said, if you cannot discredit the information, the next best thing is to attempt to discredit the person. An obviously flawed tactic used over and over by those who oppose objective reasoning. I note you don't want to deal with the abundant evidence that Seitz has not exactly been a very good scientist for quite some time. Why don't you at least have the honesty to comment on the tobacco issue. If somebody lies to you 99% of the time, one can state that logically you should not condemn him this particular time, as he might be telling the truth. Well, logically yes. In practice, he is a lying sack of shit. The problems Seitz has are all of his own making, nobody stuck a gun to his head to made him debase himself professionaly. I note that when it comes to Al Gore, you have no problem bashing the messenger either, so get off your high horse Sure Al is given to a bit of grandstanding, but the odd thing is, he gets the science pretty well. The reason he does is that he sides with the scientists doing good work, he does not stick his neck out and go with a bunch of wackos. He didn't invent any of it himself, so he does not deserve all the credit he has gotten IMO. I will happily point out the problems with Seitz. But you have not shown much scientific understanding, so I doubt it will do much good. Unfortunately, on this board I chased my tail with one fool who can't understand a simple greenhouse, and another who can't understand that correct units are vital in physics. Makes me wonder what your particular issue will be (other than calling all the science I'll show you "religion" I already know that is a major misunderstanding on your part). For starters, do you know of any recent compilation of Seitz's views? For the Oregon Petition, the only part he did was the cover letter. It lends his general support, but I would not take that to mean those are actually all his views. He did not write any of the "research" papers. Those where Arthurs, his son, and some astrophysicists. No climate folks, as expected. It was also 10 years ago.

To: greenspirit who wrote (20222)	2/11/2008 12:28:09 AM
From: neolib	Respond to of 36917

The wikipedia link on Sietz was not encouraging. 1) He's now 96. So I doubt he's had much of an updated view on global warming since 1998. Given the date, there will be some well known crap in it, which if I can't find any retraction of, I'll present to you as exhibit A of why these guys are scam artists. I doubt I'll be disappointed. 2) He denies 2'nd smoke is a risk 3) He denies CFC's degrade ozone. 4) He denies AGW. He's a nutcase.

To: greenspirit who wrote (20222)	2/11/2008 12:53:22 AM
From: neolib	Respond to of 36917

ROTFLMAO. You are hosed my friend. I was not disappointed! Indeed, the "research" article which circulated with the Oregon Petition, and which Seitz lovingly endorsed, was primarily based on the satellite/troposphere temp problem. I was hoping it was at least mentioned, but it is front and center as their evidence. LOL! I should have guessed, since the two coauthors where astrophysicists. Oh my, and I can't find any indication that said dufuses have felt any need to point out what has happened in the intervening years. So unfortunately, Seitz is a moron. Unless you can find a link showing that he has retracted his support for that element of the Oregon Petition, which given its centrality would mean repudiating the entire stunt. You really did pick a gem to hang your hat on! May I assume that you are willing to state that this particular Petition, and the science behind it, represents some of the BEST that AGW deniers have to offer?? LOL! The article states that "over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly" and says that this was based on comparison of satellite data (for 1979-1997) and balloon data from 1979-96. At the time the petition was written, this was unclear. Since then the satellite record has been revised, and shows warming. (See historical temperature record and satellite temperature measurements.) From the same link, in 2006, dear old Seitz at least admitted that their methods sucked, but still clung to his beliefs: In a 2006 article the magazine Vanity Fair stated: "Today, Seitz admits that "it was stupid" for the Oregon activists to copy the academy's format. Still, he doesn't understand why the academy felt compelled to disavow the petition, which he continues to cite as proof that it is "not true" there is a scientific consensus on global warming"[13] IIRC, the satellite anomaly had been discovered by then (2006) and the original research paper which all the goobers clung to, had in fact been repudiated by its author, but these dimwits don't seem to have figured that out. From the wikipedia link: en.wikipedia.org Assuming you are confused on the satellite/troposphere temp record, please do educate yourself on the matter. It is one of the old, and very well known denialist canards, which unfortunately bit the dust. Many of the dumb bunnies don't know this for some odd reason. Oh, I know, they don't actually like learning any science.