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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (7625)	4/25/2009 7:29:03 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 86356

You should hear yourself as a matter of fact. Appeal to concensus and adhominem attack - thats what I said and you don't disappoint: The guys you list are nto considered credible within the top tier of atmospheric sceintists. ..... Industry links According to Ross Gelbspan in a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine, Lindzen "... charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,[24] was underwritten by OPEC."[25][26] However, according to Alex Beam in a 2006 article in the The Boston Globe, Lindzen said that although he had accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from "fossil-fuel types" in the 1990s, he had not received any money from these since.[27] Lindzen has elsewhere described the Gelbspan allegation as a "slander."[28] Lindzen has been a member of several think tanks including the Cato Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute

To: koan who wrote (7625)	4/25/2009 8:05:52 PM
From: The Vet	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

"the top tier of atmospheric sceintists." You keep repeating this mantra without realising how much it weakens your case. The "atmospheric scientists" have become fixated on CO2 levels in the atmosphere to the exclusion of all else and then because that is an "atmospheric" effect they have highjacked the whole issue. Little does it matter to them that the higher CO2 levels may be an effect and not a cause of observed changes, so that point, so critical to their case, is constantly ignored or denied. Atmospheric scientists have become the force they are because of their own theory of CO2 induced global warming so indeed they protect their turf with zeal. Twenty years ago theirs was a minor science attracting meagre research funds and little publicity. Now they are super stars who can influence the world! Even if GW was occurring, and even if it was caused by increasing CO2 alone, and even if it was a solely man caused effect, and even if there were any real measures available that would cause even a token change to that effect... then such an effect wouldn't be solely the province of the "atmospheric scientist". Why do they, the atmospheric scientists (AT), ignore or ridicule other equally qualified researchers in other fields who work on other more likely and better measured causes of climate change. Geologists have a far better grasp of past changes than ATs; the sun and solar radiation measurements are the province of astronomers, physicists and a variety of other disciplines; oceanographers know more about the currents and heat movements in the ocean, the greatest heat sink on earth; botanists, biologists and land use experts know more about how CO2 is utilized and removed from the oceans and air. So why do atmospheric scientists and their supporters like you koan, continually belittle and denigrate other well qualified experts simply because they are not the "atmospheric scientists" who study only a small part of the overall picture and then assume that they, and they alone have the complete picture?