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: Lane3 who wrote (23517)	7/10/2006 12:16:44 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541403

The problem I see with that threshold is its lack of utility. If something is so very far out there that virtually no one believes it, then it's irrelevant. The belief that the Earth is flat is also pretty much irrelevant. I'm pretty easy going in my tolerance for different perspectives and opinions and idea. I may not buy them, but I tolerate just about anything for which the holder can offer a semi-respectable argument and I can stretch my suspension of disbelief pretty far when folks are earnest and thoughtful in their support of them. Past that, forget it. I tend to use "flat-earth" for anything that exceeds plausibility, something without a coherent justification. I wouldn't normally use that definition because I think "flat eathers" is only appropriately used for ideas that are so far out there that they are irrelevant. Even if I did use that definition I wouldn't call skeptics of anthropogenic global warming, "flat earthers", because some of them are earnest and thoughtful and can make semi-respectable arguments. Unconvincing arguments, perhaps arguments that wouldn't be called "fully respectable", but "semi-respectable" and "thoughtful" apply to some of them. ("Earnest isn't something I would care too much about, when defining the limit of "flat earthers". Believers that the earth is flat can be earnest, there where earnest supporters of Pol Pot and Jim Jones). Note by skeptics I am referring to people who think anthropogenic global warming, is still an open question, not people who flatly deny it and talk of conspiracies to foist this ridiculous idea on the world. So, while I wouldn't put the notion that humans are not affecting climate in the "staggeringly ignorant" category , I don't know of any plausible justification for it Denying that anthropogenic global warming is a settled question, doesn't amount to denying that human activity affects the climate. 1 - It isn't a denial, its skepticism. 2 - It isn't skepticism of any effect on the climate, only of warming. 3 - It isn't even necessarily a denial of a warming effect. You could be an "anthropogenic global warming skeptic", while thinking the effect is there but insignificant. Arguably people may fall under that category if they think it is there but the temperature is and will be relatively stable because the earth would be cooling without it. If someone flatly denies that there is any significant possibility that human activity has any effect on the climate than I would say that they fit your definition of "flat earthers", and it could even be argued that they fit mine or at least approach it.

To: Lane3 who wrote (23517)	7/10/2006 12:50:30 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541403

just too far out there... the notion that green Americans can fix global warming. This isn't "far out there" at all. One last time. The ~4% of Americans in the world population (and their cars, industry and lifestyles) produce 25% of the greenhouse gases. I don't know what the numbers are on oil consumption but I imagine they're similar, Wharfy may have them to hand. If America went green it most certainly would have a disproportionate influence to its population numbers, because it makes up so much of consumption. Besides, hopefully this would demonstrate a far better path than conspicuous consumption; remember, the American way is hugely influential. Maybe it could stand for something else?