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: FJB who wrote (25395)	10/5/2009 1:02:04 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 36921

I suspect the Wharfies h/b lobbying to restrict things here.

To: FJB who wrote (25395)	10/5/2009 5:41:17 PM
From: Peter Dierks	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36921

Banning Dissent, Even in Science October 1, 2009, 8:55 am I am constantly amazed at the totalitarianism of the global warming community and their absolute intolerance of dissent. One suspects that a reason more people are skeptical of alarmist predictions is that they know enough about human behavior to distrust someone who claims to be correct but refuses to respond to or even allow questions or replication. Anthony Watt has a good example from the world of polar bears: Exile for non-believers Mitchell Taylor is a world’s leading polar bear expert. He has studied a greater number of polar bear populations than anyone else. He has caught more polar bears than anyone else. He was going to attend the 2009 meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG). The name sounds technical, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, in one of his papers, he wrote this somewhat self-evident, yet detailed, balanced, and carefully worded description of the polar bears’ situation: “The concern that polar bears will decline if the climate continues to warm is valid. However, the assertion that polar bears will become extinct unless immediate measures are taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions is irrational because it is inconsistent with the long-term persistence of polar bears through previous periods of warming and cooling; and because the IPCC climate model predictions 50 and 100 years into the future do not suggest a future with insufficient sea ice to support polar bears as a viable species.” What was the answer? He wasn’t allowed to participate. Here is Mr Andrew Derocher’s letter: Hi Mitch, The world is a political place and for polar bears, more so now than ever before. I have no problem with dissenting views as long as they are supportable by logic, scientific reasoning, and the literature. I do believe, as do many PBSG members, that for the sake of polar bear conservation, views that run counter to human induced climate change are extremely unhelpful. In this vein, your positions and statements in the Manhattan Declaration, the Frontier Institute, and the Science and Public Policy Institute are inconsistent with positions taken by the PBSG. I too was not surprised by the members not endorsing an invitation. Nothing I heard had to do with your science on harvesting or your research on polar bears – it was the positions you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition. Time will tell who is correct but the scientific literature is not on the side of those arguing against human induced climate change. I look forward to having someone else chair the PBSG. Best regards, Andy (Derocher) If you are not familiar with Taylor’s positions that are alluded to, as I understand it they include: 1) The fact that most polar bear populations have been rising rather than falling over the last decades and 2) polar bears have survived interglacial periods in which we believe all sea ice disappeared... coyoteblog.com From: Tim Fowler