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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (20822)	6/12/2006 11:58:33 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 541141

This is one of those gaps in knowledge that allows ideological opponents of conservation (which is good for more than one reason) to jump on global warming scientists. I find it a bit like the evolution debates. Just because there is a gap in knowledge doesn't mean we fill it with God. And just because we don't know how much humans affect global warming doesn't mean we 1. do nothing or 2. bring industry to a standstill. There is a middle ground here. There are many reasons to work toward conservation- only one of them is that it might help prevent catastrophic climate change (which may or may not happen, and even if it does happen may or may not be caused by humans.) And (imo) even more important is assuring that humans aren't wiped out by the effects of higher seas, and stronger hurricanes- no matter why the seas are higher, and no matter why the hurricanes are forming; the fact is they are, and we might as well prepare for them, no matter who happens to be right about why they are threatening us. I think you can embrace the unknowns and STILL do something about the environment, and that kind of takes the wind out of the sails of the opposition, if you frame it that way.

To: JohnM who wrote (20822)	6/13/2006 10:47:22 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541141

The scientific consensus is that human activity contributes to global warming. Alistair said that such contribution is not known. That asks for some evidence that contradicts the scientific consensus. 1 - Stating the amount of contribution from human activity is unknown doesn't contradict any scientific consensus. 2 - Even if the assertion is not that the size of the human contribution is unknown but that the existence of any such contribution is unknown, Lane3's point is still valid. If an assertion is made that something is known its not on the agnostic to prove their position. Of course you can find plenty of links to support your contention and you can use those as part of your argument, but a paucity of links posted on the other side doesn't provide evidence for your argument. Edit - It does indeed appear that Alistair did not say the existence of a human contribution to global warming is unknown. Alistair said "You may wish to look at some of the mass balance studies of the ice on Antarctica and Greenland. You will find that there is no consensus that either is loosing ice. The consensus is that increases in global temperatures (up to about 3 deg C.) melt the edges of the glaciers but lead to thickening of the glaciers at higher elevations due to increased precipitation. It does appear that the average global temperature has recently been rising at about 0.2 deg C/decade. How much of this is due to human activity is unknown. It is also unknown whether or not humans can do anything to stop climate change..." Message 22535959