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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (50198)	8/8/1999 11:09:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 108807

Actually, it is not as easy as you think to "get at least a few scientists to say almost anything." Find me reputable, credible scientists who say that God created the entire world out of nothing 4,000 years ago and is fooling us by having created the world looking as though it were 4 million years old. Find me reputable, credible scientists who claim that the blood does not circulate but is dissolved and reformed out at the ends of the capillaries (as most reputable scientists believed before Harvey). Find me reputable, credible scientists who deny the existence of gravity. Find me reputable, credible scientists who believe that the simultaneous existence of clouds and rain is coincidence, not cause and effect. One interesting thing about science is that when a scientific theory is well supported by fact and experiment, there is astonishing agreement among scientists, at least until a new theory comes along and forces reconsideration of the original theory. This is not true in, for example, literature, or philosophy, or religion, or art, or music. There, one can be virtually assured of widely divergent opinions which will never be reconciled. The mere fact that there are reputable, credible scientists on both sides of the global warming theory is, for me at least, sufficient evidence that the theory remains questionable. Mere numbers do not persuade me; facts and reasoned argument do. There are several things about this debate that I take as facts well enough established to be presumed true until clearly proved false. One is that the earth goes through cycles of cooling and warming, for reasons we do not understand, and that at the present time we are not at a peak of either cooling or warming. Another is that mankind is emitting various chemicals into the atmosphere in quantities which man has never emitted before, and that although we can speculate or guess about the effect of those chemicals on the environment, we really don't know. Another is that from time to time natural events -- volcanic eruptions and comet strikes come to mind -- throw substances into the atmosphere in amounts man cannot begin to approach. So what's the bottom line? I don't have one. I don't know, and neither to you or any of the scientists either side quotes. At this point all we have is speculation and guesses. I think it's time both you and your debating opponents recognized that and moved on to the more interesting point -- if we are faced with a possibility, but not a certainty, that our present course will indeed lead to what is called global warming (and I think almost any scientist who now challenges the global warming theory will accept that global warming is at least a possibility), what if anything should we do about it.

To: Grainne who wrote (50198)	8/9/1999 6:18:00 AM
From: Edwarda	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

All I shall say here is that I agree with Chris. However, your crack about the Cato Institute is unwarranted and undermines your own credibility.

To: Grainne who wrote (50198)	8/13/1999 8:58:00 PM
From: James R. Barrett	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

To: Christine G. Bartley From: Board of Directors of "Feelings" Date: 8/13/99 Subject: Global Warming Debate Today, at 9:30 AM, the Board voted unanimously to declare you the LOSER of the debate. The Board's decision is final. The reasons for the Board's decision are as follows: 1. Your presentations border on the edge of hysteria. 2. Your "scientific evidence" was conceived by hysterical scientists. 3. Your evidence is hysterical. 4. You caused the Board to go into hysterics.