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: neolib who wrote (17760)	11/27/2007 4:28:06 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

The problem with your argument is that the article didn't just take the current rate and project it forward. It looked at the past rates and compared them to today's. It also pointed out how in the past (from apox. 3000 years ago to about 9000) Greenland was much warmer than today with sea levels no higher than today, and that in the much more recent past (1915 through 1965) Greenland was apparently about 2 degrees warmer with no acceleration in changes in sea level. As for comparisons to SS, well Social Security already spends a ton of money, and the ways that the spending will increase are understood far better than climate, and nearly locked in. Greenland's ice melting is at a very low level (four ten–thousandths of its ice per year) without any certainty of any future increase.

To: neolib who wrote (17760)	11/27/2007 5:15:44 PM
From: miraje	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

If someone bashing the SS "alarmism" noted that the current deficit run by SS is not an issue, therefore projecting forward there is not a problem, what would you think of that "analysis". But when a Cato hack uses the same poor logic to bash GW, you think it worthwhile enough to post it here. Social Security's future is a matter of mathematics and demographics. Without any changes to the system, outflow will exceed income in the future, the result of which will either be increased taxes or lower benefits (or both). It doesn't take someone with much more than a high double digit IQ to be able to grasp that reality. Forecasting the future climate of the earth is an entirely different matter, orders of magnitude more complex, with guesstimations and computer simulated possibilities the best that can be prognosticated, in spite of the pseudo-scientific religious fervor of you red/green True Believers. If you were half as clever as you fancy yourself to be, you wouldn't need to continually rely on straw man arguments, such as the above SS and GW example or the equally ridiculous creationist believer = climate change hysteria sceptic. As for Cato "hacks", I'd be willing to bet that the night janitor at their Institute has a better grasp of logic than that displayed by your feeble attempts at obfuscation. Have a nice day...