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 (18131)	12/15/2007 12:46:11 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36927

Every scientific claim has some degree of uncertainty. But the uncertainty of "the world is much older than 10K years" is a microscopically small fraction of the uncertainty about how much sea levels will rise by 2100. The first uncertainty is so small it can, even should, be ignored in almost every context. The 2nd is a major uncertainty. Another nice strawman. There is very little uncertainty that the seal level is going to be higher. Of course there is uncertainty in on how much, especially how accurate one is going to be on that prediction. BTW, did you note the reports from the recent Geophysics conf. in S.F. Bunch of papers on Greenland melts being faster than IPCC models. IIRC, you were trying to claim that recent papers indicated the opposite. I think it is very safe to say that by 2100, sea levels will be significantly above the IPCC 2007 consensus, largely because the consensus had political pressure to paint a less dire future. The next decade will make things much clearer.