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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (125056)	2/25/2004 1:57:02 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You repeatedly made clear, until you said the opposite, that you felt the report had no bearing on the global warming debate. You then wrote to me, "You implied that it was a direct contradiction of the Administrations agnosticism and call for further research." Since I had pasted the message of the Pentagon Report, without reference to the administration's positions regarding either global warming or further research at all, but only to the conclusions and recommendations in the Report itself, your declaration that I had, took me aback. I asked for a citation. There were none for you to offer. You yourself, (that's you, not I, you) certainly "implied that it was a direct contradiction of the Administrations agnosticism and call for further research" in your statement, which I paste, "the authors are certainly pushing an alarmist pov about global warming......" I would ask you in the future not to attribute to me implications you yourself have drawn. It is, as well as annoying, a change of subject. And, Neo, you keep repeating that "the report envisioned a worse case scenario." Again, Neo: Not quite. They commissioned a report to determine "plausible" eventualities and their possible urgency, and did a "worse case scenario" on the plausible, choosing a mid-level crisis on which to expand. I do agree with your statement that it is a good idea to plan against (plausible) contingencies.