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 (18674)	12/19/2007 3:35:28 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36927

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) There is no such thing as a scientific consensus, if there is it is a conspiracy, so we might as well accept Cato's view, it is most likely more accurate anyway. Ah, my bad! BTW, how much stronger do you think the scientific consensus is for evolution vs AGW? At what point would you accept that there is a consensus wrt to AGW?