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 (18434)	12/18/2007 12:59:59 PM
From: TimF	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. Again no straw man. Here I'm not just finding some argument to oppose, I'm directly arguing against the point you raised. Its not only not a straw man argument, its the exact opposite of the definition of a straw man argument. There is very little uncertainty that the seal level is going to be higher. That isn't really true, and even if there was no certainty at all, it wouldn't make my post an example of a straw man argument. 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. In many ways the conference had political pressure to paint a more dire future. The next decade will make things much clearer. Clearer at least. Not sure about "much clearer".