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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (1605)	9/10/2011 11:58:09 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Let me ponder this some--appreciate the information.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (1605)	9/11/2011 11:03:13 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water	2 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 85487

Brumar and Nadine: I' ve only spent a couple of weeks educating myself at odd intervals about the climate/global warming issue and I don't pretend to any expertise on the science itself. My take on that is that sooner or later the science will become more definitive as more data and research becomes available and eventually some rough consensus will emerge. (And let me just add I hope Lindzen and the AGW view is correct because if they are the world is better off---although we may all die from air pollution instead of warming (G). What does seem fairly clear to me is the following: 1. The issue has become highly politicized. Both the right and the left can accept equal blame for this IMHO and what good is it to start a "They did it first" debate. Gore did his thing, hopefully in good faith but less charitably maybe as revenge for the 2000 election, and the right think tank machine responded to support the minority view. 2. Hansen and Lindzen are both fine respected scientists (as far as the science goes) that both have their followers (both men, interestingly enough, made their first big science splashes with ground breaking research on the Vesuvian atmosphere). Hansen really didn't run into any trouble/controversy that I can tell of until his conclusions about what the practical implications for his research would be (ain't gonna burn no coal no more no more ain't gonna burn no coal no more) ran into the opposite opinion held by a rich frat brat who just happened to be, to use his own words, "President of whole f----ing United Stated". That's when political appointees started directing Hansen to coordinate his public statements with NASA's public relations eventually resulting in the NASA Inspector General concluding, more or less, that the bureaucrats were trying to manage the science. 3. Now both of you have chosen to promote the right's point of view on the matter. Why, only you both know, but it's not because you intrinsically understand the science itself--although you apparently understand the lay arguments about the politics of it and the case of the AGW. And to its discredit , the right appears to be trying to taint the vast majority of climatologists who accept the probability that there is something to the climate modeling by using climate gate to paint the entire scientific crowd on this side, to paraphrase the current Sec of State, as some vast left wing scientific conspiracy. This methodology on the part of the right is only one step removed from the Stalinist approach which would put an end to any scientific controversy it disproved of by taking the scientist on the perceived wrong side of the ideology and shooting him. 4. I think the better for us all is to stand back and get out of the way of the scientists--or if we are going to post scientific tidbits updates on the matter, than we should attempt to post the counter views if available. Most scientists, IMHO, just want to be left alone to do their research---as that is the prime reason they went into the field to begin with. 5. If Hansen wants to crusade for his science then it is OK for the AGW crowd and its supporters to publicize the opposite scientific viewpoint, but not to paint him as some crazed idealist. After all, if he's right, if we're not dead we are in vastly significant lifestyle change--probably to our detriment. I appreciate the facts and arguments both of you have posted as they have significantly increased my understanding of the issue. BUTW