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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (114308)	7/1/2009 11:51:38 AM
From: Paul Kern	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541759

They were not the IPCC, they were the National Academy of Sciences and NOAA - (Newsweek 1975) Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” So, They were wrong. Research happens. Thinking changes. Get it?

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (114308)	7/3/2009 12:46:05 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541759

That Newsweek article is certainly a favorite of the "no problems" crowd. But it's a Newsweek article, not a scientific publication. As for the "authorities" you extracted out of it, well, one at a time: National Academy of Sciences “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.” Ok, but there's no prediction there, just stating the obvious. Then there's NOAA And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972. Hard to put much stock in one sentence summaries. I'd guess this measure had something to aerosols in the atmosphere, but it's impossible to make anything out of a vague reference like that. Then there's McQuigg: “The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Maybe, maybe not. It's true that scientists should be careful about talking off the top of their heads like that, but that particular statement says nothing about a coming ice age, and the sentence preceding it just talked about increasing extremes in weather, not a coming ice age. We're still missing any hint of the books that greenspirit hypothesized or your forced-viewing movie.