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: TimF who wrote (17530)	11/20/2007 5:26:55 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36921

Yes I read the entire page. If you had bothered to read the final paragraph yourself, you would have understood the entire point: We don't want to do anything economically significant about CO2. That is in fact the Cato slant. It is about economics, not science. The rest was drivel. Cato will never be taken seriously on science until they are honest about what they are discussing: Economics or science or liberty. Their strategy is to obfuscate about science while pretending to elucidate, when in fact what they care about is not correct science, but a certain ideological slant on economics. I ran a little experiment on LindyBill here awhile back to test my theory. Lindy likes Steve Milloy, the ex-Cato Junk Science king, who among other things claims 2'nd-hand smoke health risks are "junk science". Lindy claims to hold that view as well. So I asked him to go on record as stating that he sees zero health risk to kids raised from babies - 18-years old in a household with heavy 2'nd hand smoke. Wisely, he would not state that. Instead he started rantin about "stateists" trying to control people. That is Cato in a nutshell. Full of crap on science, that even they know is crap, but caring above all for personal liberties. The foist their crap "views" on science on an dimwitted public, and do no good for understanding at all. Make an argument for your liberties that stands on its own feet, don't instead distort science and make a fool of yourself in the process. I may or may not agree that parents have a "right" to subject their kids to growing up in a 2'nd hand smoke environment. But at least I can respect someone who takes a stand on one side or the other and advances reasonable arguments. When someone lacks the cajones to admit that their claimed views don't actually match what they know to be true is not something I can admire.