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 (17765)	11/30/2007 5:54:59 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

Birthrate have fluctuated before and will again, but the possibility that they will massively increase in the next several decades in the US is pretty insignificant. Also even if they do the demographic facts represented by the already born people will still mean there is a problem. As for Greenland the author wasn't writing a book, or a 50 page study, pointing out specific relevant facts. The author didn't say that the melting rate would remain the same, but did point out that even with much higher temperatures in Greenland for thousands of years sea levels where not higher, and much more recently with slightly higher temperatures for decades, there was no sudden massive increase in melting and sea levels. The author didn't calculate melting rates going forward, because it wasn't that type of study; and because to an extent the point is that we don't know what they will be, but without a massive increase (which based on past evidence the author thinks is unlikely) you won't get anywhere near the majority of Greenland ice melted for the foreseeable future. The author wasn't assuming everything will be static. He pointed out how it appears that the melting rate may have slowed. You seem to find him at fault for not assuming that it will not explode upwards, or for not creating some sophisticated but almost certainly unreliable simulation and than reporting on the results. Either way your point isn't reasonable. Yes there are different ways to spin the facts but its unreasonable for your to except someone with a different opinion to spin them to support yours. There is plenty of reasons for skepticism about the idea that vast quantities of Greenland ice is going to melt in the foreseeable future and the author points them out. There are counter arguments to be made, and you can make them, but so far your responses have been 1 - Ad hominem about CATO, or to the extent that your not saying the argument is wrong or should be considered wrong because of CATO's faults as you see them, than gratuitous bashing of CATO. 2 - Expecting the other side to make your argument for you, and implying its some great fault that they did not. 3 - Specious analogies to Social Security. 4 - Irrelevant points about second hand smoke. 5 - The simple point that yes melting rates could increase. That at least is a good point, but its not an overwhelming one, and one that should be simple made in a sentence or two, rather than with paragraphs of bashing the original article.