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 (18011)	12/9/2007 9:07:41 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36921

If Steve McIntrye says that all this CO2 going into the atmosphere cannot be causing a discernible temp increase on the planet (ala the Hockey stick) I know enough to dismiss him as a fool. The same with creationists. Even "global warming isn't happening", isn't the equivalent of creationism. Although depending on exactly what you mean by that it isn't reasonable. (Almost beyond a doubt the earth is warmer now than a few decades ago, and warmer by an even greater degree than during the little ice age) Evolution, natural selection, etc. are foundations of biology and pretty solidly established. How on earth do you know that? Are you asserting they are in doubt or are you just playing games? "The Earth is warming, solely or primarily because of human emission of CO2", is less so. Is this a strawman or what? The earth warms and cools for many non-human reasons. It is CURRENTLY in a warming trend, and will continue to be in one, primarily due to human initiated causes. That is very well established. Its not a strawman its almost the same thing that you say in reply. It only goes further by suggesting CO2 as the main reason, when your response doesn't mention CO2 (but many people's statements do). Your statement goes much further because beyond saying "is warming" (and "currently in a warming trend" amounts to "is warming"), you say "and will continue to be in one" and "primarily due to human initiated causes. The combination of all of those is a reasonable thing to believe but it is not very well established, certainly not to the extent of evolution. "The Earth is warming, solely or primarily because of human emission of CO2, and if we don't drastically cut the CO2 emissions in X time frame, it will result in a massive world wide calamity, while if we do make these major cuts we will be ok, or at least in a much better situation than if we don't" Again, strawman. Not a strawman because people actually argue that. I didn't suggest that you did. And I only mentioned as part of a list of probabilities that where progressively less established. Combine those and you are being very unreasonable attacking it as a strawman. The Earth is warming due to human initiated actions, and the consequences are likely to be bad enough that economical steps should be taken now to reduce the future impact. That is pretty clear as well. It appears reasonable likely, I'm not sure if I'd say "pretty clear", I think that goes to far. "We aren't handing out honors here. If you want to, than fine, honor who you want, but it doesn't change the fact that.." What did Gore & the IPCC scientists recently get? Are you asleep? A totally irrelevant response. Once again WE are not handing out honors here. Honors are irrelevant to the issue. Getting honors doesn't show that your right, not getting them doesn't show that your wrong. In the context of this conversation they are meaningless.