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 (17567)	12/1/2007 4:04:57 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 36921

Also if it is 90% its 90% for at most something like, "the world has been warming recently, and apparently human emission of CO2 is an part of the reason why this is happening", not anything like "the world has been warming in an historically unusually way, solely or mostly because of human emission of CO2, and if we don't drastically reduce emissions of CO2, the temperature increase will speed up leading to horrible consequences, so we must slash CO2 emission to avoid disaster". Now it can reasonably be argued that the first statement is in doubt, so there is indeed two sides, even if that's the question your debating, but the 2nd one is certainly in doubt, and does not get 90% support from experts in the field. Its a frequent tactic of those who support massive relatively quick changes to combat global warming, to portray a possible vague near consensus about the first statement, in to a strong near total consensus about the 2nd. That either reflects a misunderstanding or its dishonest.