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: RetiredNow who wrote (136689)	4/15/2010 6:57:44 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543271

Just stumbled over this.. In July 1979 in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, Jule Charney, one of the pioneers of climate modeling, brought together a panel of experts under the U.S. National Research Council to sort out the state of the science. The panel’s work has become iconic as a foundation for the enterprise of climate change study that followed (Somerville et al. 2007). Such reports are a traditional approach within the United States for eliciting expert views on scientific questions of political and public policy importance (Weart 2003). In this case, the panel concluded that the potential damage from greenhouse gases was real and should not be ignored. The potential for cooling, the threat of aerosols, or the possibility of an ice age shows up nowhere in the report. Warming from doubled CO2 of 1.5°–4.5°C was possible, the panel reported. While there were huge uncertainties, Verner Suomi, chairman of the National Research Council’s Climate Research Board, wrote in the report’s foreword that he believed there was enough evidence to support action: “A wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late” (Charney et al. 1979) Huh. So in 1979 the uber-credible, uber-cautious NRC was already warning of the risks of inaction. Alarmists!!! climateprogress.org

To: RetiredNow who wrote (136689)	4/15/2010 10:42:33 PM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543271

The EPA has been the subject of political football almost from the get go yanked one way or the other depending on which party was in control of the whitehouse. I do think Congress has the right to get involved. EPA should report to us the consequences of not following their recommendations, but I don't see how they can operate in a political vacuum. There should be hearing(s) and a debate on the proposed course of recommendations and industry Presidents/CEO's should be subpeonaed to testify so that they can't hide behind lobbyists. I think it would make more people willing to pay for clean & green (through higher utility rates) if it heard the industry saying it had to pollute or go bust, or conversely, make the industry back off that point.