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 : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (16642)	10/3/2007 2:53:00 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

New advances in science don't get produced by concensus. Fair enough. But when you get a lot of data points that make sense using a theory about CO2 and GW, and you get what is it now 8 out of 10 of the hottest years on record in the last decade or so and you get sightings of Arctic waters that have never been seen before and unprecedented glacial melts in various parts of the world and it's all something that earlier theories also predicted as a possibility given our understanding of how the atmosphere works, then you don't just dismiss that stuff (and more) as hype and hysteria any more than a miner would dismiss a dead canary. me: Science proceeds cautiously." you: I don't see the AGW proceding cautiously.... AGW looks like more of a marketing campaign or evangelistic religion than careful science. That is only because you haven't been looking The first IPCC report came out about 1990. There have been two more now, and only in the last one did they say that there is a high probability that human activity is causing the CO2 buildup that is causing GW. But then, I think it is you that thinks that the IPCC is a UN fraud, don't you? Nevermind. Fortunately, it doesn't really matter what we write on these threads. Especially this one, with a very low following. I thought I would be enlightened. Instead I get a lot of either naive or deliberate or just obstreperous obfuscation. To each his own, lol. Yeah, I know--I'm so arrogant and silly for thinking that the IPCC report written by several thousand scientists around the world represents state of the art science.