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 (18591)	12/19/2007 1:53:24 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36921

Thats a ridiculous argument. The techniques are the same only in the most general sense, and in that very generals sense arguments for all sorts of things use the same techniques. BS. They are nearly identical and consist of the following: 1) Point out that some "respected" scientists "doubt" the consensus. 2) Claim that there is no consensus despite the evidence there is. 3) Claim that the consensus exists because of "religious" or other non-scientific reasons. 4) Claim the minority view is suppressed and those who "doubt" the consensus are discriminated against. 5) Recycle endless crap arguments such as "The historical records show CO2 lagging Temps in prior cycles therefore humans are not causing the current warming trend". The hallmark of these is being so stupid as to not understand that they just quoted one of the strongest arguments for why we know this time is different. 6) Complete focus on finding holes in the consensus view. 7) Complete avoidance of building a counter theory able to explain the big picture. 8) Hide behind ignorance as justification for doubt, i.e. we don't know everything, therefore we know nothing. I believe you yourself used this one on me. It is a Lindzen favorite BTW. So sorry, but you guys are EXACTLY the same.