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 (18668)	12/19/2007 3:12:49 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36927

ROTFLMAO. That is what the science said. There is pressure to conclude that that is what the science says. To the extent it comes to actually resemble a consensus that just implies more pressure to come to such a conclusion. To go against a proto-consensus, or esp. a real consensus requires a lot more conviction, and without overwhelming data, is likely to not be taken as seriously as confirming the existing consensus (or in the case of global warming, "majority opinion" not real consensus, but the effect remains even if it isn't quite as strong) I've got to be careful with you and strawmen. You toss that term around in inaccurate, even absurd ways. Low, and they will be laughed at. Not likely. Maybe if you have global cooling, those who predicted warming will be laughed at, but if you get less global warming than they predicted, it will still be warming, and will be considered confirming the theory that they are behind. There is ample historical records of "tippings" which the current models can't with any accuracy predict. The negative feedback doesn't have to be sudden and at a massive tipping point. It can happen all along. Also there is ample historical record of negative feedback happening after positive feedback tipings.