SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Lane3 who wrote (20889)6/14/2006 9:14:52 AM
From: JohnM  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 541236
 
I don't pay terribly much attention to quotes from interviews. My own experience has been terrible in that regard. Don't even recognize what I've said. I think it best, when arguing with the points a specific person makes, to refer to an essay, book, text in a movie, something that is clearly their own.

The best way, in this particular case, to see what Gore is arguing is to see the film. The only points, I recall, in the film in which he invoked scientific consensus were on points one and two. On points three, four and five, he made them as contngent points, referred to specific scientists, used several "ifs", etc.



To: Lane3 who wrote (20889)6/14/2006 10:49:35 AM
From: Mary Cluney  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 541236
 
Do you see the problem? We don't know the size of the danger but it's "catastrophic." We don't know the nearness or size of the danger but we have a tipping point coming up in ten years.

If human activity impact global warming, then by definition, it is catastrophic.

Does it matter if it is 10 years or 100 years away?

Does it matter if we continue doing business without constraint that it destroys all life on earth or just 50% of life on earth?

By the time you get mathematical certainty, it will be too late.

Right now, it is more than just heuristics and less than 100% mathematical certainty. The trend is clear. Mathematical certainty is not there.