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: Land Shark who wrote (26280)	12/3/2009 4:57:08 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 36917

""You'll never convince me that America cannot have the cleanest air and the purest water of any place on the planet," Graham said." lolol how will that happen with China polluting like hell and it's blowing over to us.

To: Land Shark who wrote (26280)	12/3/2009 5:19:32 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 36917

Do you always get your spin from French/Arab media? ROTFLOL

To: Land Shark who wrote (26280)	12/3/2009 5:26:45 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 36917

Climategate Explodes The Myth Of Politically-Neutral Science Graham Winfrey\|Nov. 30, 2009, 5:57 PM \| 1,496 \|36 PrintTags: Climate Change, Scandals, Politics, Global Warming It doesn't matter what side of the climate change debate you're on, or even what the soon to be released data ultimately reveals. Climategate is a big deal. Will Wilkinson explains why The scientific implications of the Climategate files are probably small, but the political implication is certainly large–because of the politicized nature of climate science confirmed by the files. Verification of the existence of conspiring enforcers of orthodoxy weakens the strongest rhetorical weapon in the alarmist arsenal. The idea that the science behind predictions of potentially catastrophic warming is rock solid and that the putative scientific consensus reflects the rock solidity of the science licenses the inference that there is no scientifically respectable excuse for skepticism of or disagreement with the consensus. That is a big stick to thump people with. But the Climategate files strongly suggest that at least some of the science is not rock solid and that the scientific consensus is at least in part the product of silencing or marginalizing those who might upset it. The files have made “How can we be sure that you did not fudge your data” and “How do we know that dissenting voices have been given a fair hearing?” questions that we now must ask rather than questions skeptics can be effectively shouted down for asking. The files show that suspicion is warranted. That’s a big deal. I’ve waited a bit on this one to see how it would shake out. The hacked/leaked emails and data seemed to me like prime fodder for motivated cognition. My expectations were pretty much met. Many alarmists have inappropriately minimized the importance of the evidence of a shameful conspiracy to enforce what is clearly an ideological party line among climate researchers. Many skeptics have gone too far in using the revelations as grounds for casting doubt on the entire scientific case for AGW. But, clearly, the thrust of the scandal vindicates the skeptics’ claims that the science of climate change is conducted in an ideologically charged atmosphere, that there really are coordinated attempts to suppress or marginalize studies and scholars out of step with the favored narrative, and that there really are coordinated attempts to make evidence in favor of the favored narrative look better than it really is. The scientific implications of the Climategate files are probably small, but the political implication is certainly large–because of the politicized nature of climate science confirmed by the files. Verification of the existence of conspiring enforcers of orthodoxy weakens the strongest rhetorical weapon in the alarmist arsenal. The idea that the science behind predictions of potentially catastrophic warming is rock solid and that the putative scientific consensus reflects the rock solidity of the science licenses the inference that there is no scientifically respectable excuse for skepticism of or disagreement with the consensus. That is a big stick to thump people with. But the Climategate files strongly suggest that at least some of the science is not rock solid and that the scientific consensus is at least in part the product of silencing or marginalizing those who might upset it. The files have made “How can we be sure that you did not fudge your data” and “How do we know that dissenting voices have been given a fair hearing?” questions that we now must ask rather than questions skeptics can be effectively shouted down for asking. The files show that suspicion is warranted. That’s a big deal. It is not surprising to see a “Move along! Nothing to see here!” response from alarmists, but there is certainly something to see. Though I’m sure some ideologues will merely amp up their armtwisting thug tactics to protect the fragile perception of consensus they had achieved (precioussssssss!), I predict that the overall response from the scientific community will be healthy and invigorating. Climate science will become more transparent and more rigorously by-the-book because climate scientists are becoming more fully aware that the impulse to jealously protect a public perception of consensus can undermine itself by producing questionable science and a justifiably skeptical public. businessinsider.com

To: Land Shark who wrote (26280)	12/3/2009 6:38:59 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Respond to of 36917

He should have a look at the southern hemisphere: < "You'll never convince me that America cannot have the cleanest air and the purest water of any place on the planet," Graham said. > There are too many billions of people, dusty deserts, chimneys, exhausts and multitudes of pollutants for any place in the northern hemisphere to claim the cleanest air. Without the cleanest air, they won't have the purest water either. The northern hemisphere is generally disgusting in atmospheric quality. But they make dopey environmental laws which do a bad job of protecting air quality. For example, in Los Angeles, for decades cars had catalytic converters but dirty great trucks with dirty great diesel engines would belch huge clouds of sooty, sticky carcinogenic muck into the air. An efficient car could run on the pollutants in the air and not need fuel. Suck enough air through and burn the carbon and hydrocarbons to provide the energy. That's a slight exaggeration, but in some areas, it might just have worked. I recall a car maker claiming their exhaust was cleaner than the air going in the front. Mqurice