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: JohnM who wrote (115656)	7/17/2009 10:03:41 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541851

To be fair, Mr. Green provided the link :-) As so often happens with the minority guys out there, they don't have the ability to actually do much science, and what they might manage to do, if they offered valid criticism (which would be good) is ruined because the guys I've seen have a complete inability to admit any doubt. Now there are certainly people on the climate change side who are like that, but there are so many people on the climate change side that there are also plenty who are willing to concede a broad range of possibility. When you look into their publishing records and their sponsorship, and who agrees with them (or more likely on the denier side, just how few people of any scientific stature do agree with them)- it all becomes pretty clear, though not, apparently, to everyone. The sad thing is, I wish Lindzen was right. I hope he is right. I just don't see much chance of his being right. I'm hardly the climate change fanatic Green would like to believe I am. I really really REALLY don't look forward to climate change. I don't want it to be happening- and I wish we weren't putting gigatons of carbon in to the air, and if we have to put gigatons of C in to the air (which apparently we do), I wish it wouldn't do anything in the air. But wishful thinking doesn't stop me from actually thinking. What is a gigaton? gigatons (GT) one billion (1,000,000,000) tons or two trillion (2,000,000,000,000) pounds. How many are we adding? As of 2004[update], around 27 gigatonnes of CO2 are released from fossil fuels per year worldwide, equivalent to about 7.4 gigatonnes of carbon (see List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions); in 2006 8.4 gigatonnes carbon were emitted [1]. With some simple calculations based on the surface area of the Earth, normal atmospheric pressure, and an estimate of roughly 400ppmv atmospheric CO2 content one can calculate that the atmospheric CO2 content is currently approximately 3 teratonnes. en.wikipedia.org .......... Remember- fossil fuels have been a carbon sequestration mechanism. They have trapped all that carbon for eons- and now we are (foolishly) releasing it very fast. Silly us

To: JohnM who wrote (115656)	7/17/2009 12:33:30 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541851

He says while waving his pom-poms from the sidelines. :-) Maybe I'll write something on wikipedia tonight, let it post tomorrow and be presented as some kind of deep research about Global Warming. LOL Naaah, couldn't happen. I heard the Editor running wikipedia is a big Al Gore worshipper, where entries not supporting the Global Warming doomsdayer mantra are immediately removed. Geez! Did you say you actually worked in academia? If this passes for "research" well, I don't know what to say, except sad.... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- adamsmith.org Recently, quite a few people who occasionally use Wikipedia have told me that they have noticed that this useful online encyclopaedia is left leaning in some of its entries. I always assumed this might just reflect the same bias in the media as a whole. But I was wrong. The bias does not emerge by default but is vigorously enforced, as this story on Wikipedia global-warming propaganda shows. Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers, sums up the situation well: In theory, Wikipedia is a "people's encyclopedia" written and edited by the people who read it; so on controversial topics, one might expect to see a broad range of opinion. But on global warming, Wikipedia offers consensus, Gore-style -- a consensus forged by censorship, intimidation, and deceit. Solomon undertook several attempts to edit the Wikipedia page on global warming and to delete mistakes for instance about British scientist Bennie Peiser, only to find his entries eradicated time and again. Obviously in the people's encyclopaedia there are two classes of editors: one with genuine imprimatur and another that may be censored. Solomon discovered that network administrator William Connolley, a ruthless enforcer of the doomsday consensus, uses his authority to ensure Wikipedia readers see only what he wants them to see. Any reference, anywhere among Wikipedia's 2.5 million English-language pages, that casts doubt on the consequences of climate change will be bent to Connolley's bidding. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gee, what a shocker.... en.wikipedia.org