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 (18655)	12/19/2007 2:28:14 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

1) Point out that some "respected" scientists "doubt" the consensus. Nothing wrong with doing that. If some group you think is unreasonable does it, that doesn't mean that doing it is a sign of being unreasonable. 2) Claim that there is no consensus despite the evidence there is. Its a bit much to say there is a consensus except perhaps in the most broad sense (in other words a consensus on something like "Human CO2 emissions put upward pressure on temperatures", combined with "The earth has been warming"). There might be fairly broad agreement that goes further, perhaps much further than that, but its not strong enough to call a consensus. "Consensus" doesn't equal "majority". 3) Claim that the consensus exists because of "religious" or other non-scientific reasons. That's a claim that has to be evaluated each time its used. If its wrong in one case, it can be right, or partially right in another. If its wrong in both, that still doesn't make the two group like each other. 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. Its not a crap argument. Sure its a sign that things may be different now. Its also a sign that we have a poor understanding of exactly how climate trends work. 6) Complete focus on finding holes in the consensus view. That's not a bug, that's a feature. Science relies on testing and challenging views whether or not they happen to fir a current consensus. 7) Complete avoidance of building a counter theory able to explain the big picture. That's not a bug or a feature. Its neutral. The fact that someone doesn't come up with their own theory is not a problem. If they did come up with a really good theory it might be a good thing, but there is nothing wrong with not doing so. 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. Again not a bug but a feature. If we don't know for sure than we don't know for sure. Ignorance about something is NOT proof of the opposite of someone's claim. I can't reasonably say "we don't know what will happen with the climate, so I think global warming claims are obviously wrong". But I'm not claiming that. If we are ignorant, than that means we don't know. The the claims about the future is unsubstantiated. So sorry, but you guys are EXACTLY the same. Message 24144948 And yes that's one similarity rather than the 8 that you listed, but I could list more than 8 if it actually meant anything. (and also some of your 8 are questionable)

To: neolib who wrote (18655)	12/19/2007 5:29:50 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 36921

So the fact that CO2 follows temperature change is a crap argument against the fact the CO2 drives temperature. That is the a tenet of the religion of neolibism AKA ear2earfeces. Now if the model of the CO2 driving climate religion profer this peer reviewed model guess proving their religious beliefs of CO2 driving climate and it can clearly be expressed in summary as a figure. then when reality measures the figure and thus the model meaningless, all the religion of neolibism AKA ear2earfeces has is a bad smell.