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: Dale Baker who wrote (25085)	7/25/2006 1:15:15 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541602

the whole causation issue is very much in doubt for me, at least not beyond a reasonable level of murkiness and opacity. Me, too, although I believe it's prudent and wise to minimize air pollution and not waste natural resources. But for different reasons than being afraid of climate change.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (25085)	7/25/2006 1:30:34 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Respond to of 541602

Since there are periods of warming before the current human industrial impact and periods of cooling in the presence of industrialization, the whole causation issue is very much in doubt for me Unless there is some kind of conspiracy within the scientific community, I suspect they have included the historic data points in their risk assessment computer model for global warming going forward. The scientific community can be wrong about all this. They have been wrong in the past on important discoveries, but what else do we have to go on? I can understand if we are skeptical on some intuitive basis, but I can't understand having a conviction on this matter that is contrary to the conventional scientific view.