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 : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (25306)	4/22/2012 4:14:30 PM
From: Solon	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 69300

Please do not send me someone's blog as "evidence". LOL! Please do not refer me to some cut and paste from any members of SI simply trying to support a prejudice. I do not go to the dog pound for heart surgery. I find this whole "controversy" is mostly contrived. Honest people admit to the overwhelming evidence that people and their activities matter. At the same time, honest people do not fan these flames of hysteria. There should not be any "sides" to this issue. That is childish. We are living in a global community. The internet is connecting our planet. I am very glad that the world has come together to monitor, assess, and research issues involving how we impact our environment. Perhaps someday our ability to regulate climate may make the difference in our survival as a species. Everything I have read about the IPCC gives credibility to certain propositions: It is open to the opinions of all scientists from all of the world. It does not compensate any scientists for their opinions. It is heavily scrutinized and lives behind glass walls. FACT: I can find 100 scientists to attest that anthropogenic climate change is a reality that should be both acknowledged and addressed...for every 1 scientist you can produce as a naysayer. FACT: Every credible Scientific body in the world overwhelmingly supports the fact that human activities impact climate and that research into the whys and wherefores could be very valuable to the future of our species. You need to do more than refer me to political blogs from disgruntled cowboys if you are to explain away these facts. And I am sorry! But not even the great mind of Ponokee can stand against the united might of virtually every scientist (and certainly every scientific organization) in the world! I will make it easy for you. I really don't care to play the cut and paste game for what I consider a non issue. There is a reason I am not on any of those threads. I see it as a waste of time. But listen: Post me an article from a Scientific Organization that has a world wide reputation and credibility across the globe and which claims that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax and that all research ought to be stopped. That is all.Show me evidence that the entire Scientific community is involved in a conspiracy and show me why! That is all you need to do to prevail in this discussion. Just show me the conspiracy to explain why virtually everybody in a position to speak with credibility to the issue of climate change (from every country in the world) speaks in one voice. You have about 200 member countries in the "conspiracy" with the UNFCCC, eh?! ;-) Surely there is a credible scientific organization in ONE of those countries who disagrees with the consensus?? ONE?? And I have read plenty of long winded blogs from "experts" posing as knowledgeable--with graphs and formulas and all...but generally speaking, when I track then down I find a disgruntled nobody with no credentials to justify the mouth! In the meantime, please do not try to involve me in your polarization. I could really care less. Personally, I think it makes sense for humans to consider how they impact their world. But I have my own bed to go to in the cold hard ground and humanity will make and sleep in her own bed, as well. I am confident, however, that new research techniques will quiet the barking dogs within 5 years. sciencedaily.com "Fossil fuel emissions have driven Earth's atmospheric CO2 from concentrations of about 280 parts per million in the early 1800s to about 390 parts per million today, said Miller. The vast majority of climate scientists believe higher concentrations of the greenhouse gas CO2 in Earth's atmosphere are directly leading to rising temperatures on the planet. "We think the approach offered by this study can increase the accuracy of emissions detection and verification for fossil fuel combustion and a host of other man-made gases," said Lehman. He said the approach of using carbon-14 has been supported by the National Academy of Sciences and could be an invaluable tool for monitoring greenhouse gases by federal agencies like NOAA. Unfortunately, NOAA's greenhouse gas monitoring program has been cut back by Congress in recent years, said Lehman. "Even if we lack the will to regulate emissions, the public has a right to know what is happening to our atmosphere. Sticking our heads in the sand is not a sound strategy," he said."