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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric who wrote (24910)	1/18/2011 1:55:31 AM
From: Hawkmoon	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

Oh Hawk you finally went off the deep end! Oh.. have I now? The present, and still controversial head, of the IPCC, is NOT an atmospheric scientist. He got his start in Industrial Engineering and Economics: "Commencing his career with the Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi, where he held several managerial positions, Dr Pachauri joined the North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA, where he obtained an MS in Industrial Engineering in 1972, a PhD in Industrial Engineering and a PhD in Economics, and also served as Assistant Professor (August 1974 -- May 1975) and Visiting Faculty Member (Summer 1976 and 1977) in the Department of Economics and Business." climatescience.gov But apparently some of the books he writes are smutty porn fare: wattsupwiththat.com And of course, his research is always impeccable, coming from some of the best sources.. Magazines and low-level student research: wattsupwiththat.com Yet, this incompetent and climatically unqualified "scientist" is in charge of the group that makes GLOBAL environmental policy decisions that impact everyone's lives?? en.wikipedia.org NOW!!.. This is not to say that economists and engineers shouldn't have a say in the climate discussion. EVERYONE should be able to question the science with CREDIBLE dissenting opinions. Even you and I, my having been trained as a Political Scientist (the science of which even I'm sometimes embarrassed to defend) have a right to ask germane questions and have the evidence put to the test. The REALITY is that the earth's climate is impacted by ANY NUMBER of scientific disciplines. Astrophysics, IMO, is the predominant one, since I tend to believe that solar and orbital eccentricities make the greatest impact on the planet's climate. Biology – unless there’s a large degree of specialisation of the effects of climate change on some biological variable (growth, change of ecosystems etc), this has no bearing on the subject. That statement is just idiotic.. Even Climatologists are asserting biological effects on global warming, via biological methane production (farting), primarily with regard to the surge in domesticated animal populations to feed mankind. And, as I've often mentioned here previously, Geological, Chemical, and Oceanographic influences also directly impact the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere (Iron fertilization and Phytoplankton levels). But is there ANY discussion of the magnitude of these contributing factors to elevated CO2 levels in IPCC reports. Not that I have found, or seen discussed. Oh yeah.. we can blame increasing global temps on 20% increase in CO2 levels, but we can't discuss the fact that oceanic phytoplankton levels have ALSO DECREASED by 20-30% over the past 30 years of observation.. That's science? It's BS, Eric.. It's just UTTER BS to draw conclusions when such obvious "forcing factors" exist to explain why CO2 levels are increasing. COMMON SENSE tells us that plants LOVE CO2!! They will consume all of it they are capable of, so long as all other elements they require to grow are present. So why aren't phytoplankton thriving in this higher CO2 level environment? Because there's ONE LIMITING FACTOR.. Iron deficiency (also known as Chlorosis) But again.. no discussion of this CRITICAL VARIABLE in the IPCC "model".. But here we have @ssholes like you trying to claim that biology doesn't matter when it comes to CC/GW science.. As for peer review, if the system is politically controlled and monopolized by proponents of Climate Change/Global Warming, there is little chance of any dissenting opinion being permitted. The Peer Review system HAS FAILED and is monopolized by CC/GW sycophants.. each propping up the flawed pseudo-science that government grants, authorized by politically motivated politicians, are paying them to create. And to continue getting access to that money, they stifle any credible dissent. john-daly.com The Scientific Method has been raped and prostituted in the name of political ideologies and economic agendas. It's about controlling mankind and limiting their economic potential. Computer Science – see Aerospace Engineering Dude.. who do you think is assisting in programming all of the climatic computer models? Garbage in.. Garbage out.. That's what your basing such economic and political decisions upon.. Garbage data. Garbage models.. Garbage policy decisions. Hawk