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 (18679)	12/19/2007 4:14:45 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 36927

if there is it is a conspiracy Now who's knocking down straw men? so we might as well accept Cato's view I'm not sure Cato has any unified view, if they do I don't see any reason to defer to it. I have my own opinions, if they agree with some CATO position that isn't a sign that my opinion is wrong. BTW, how much stronger do you think the scientific consensus is for evolution vs AGW? Stronger, but its hard to quantify how much. Its not like there is standard units for how strong the consensus about an idea is. At what point would you accept that there is a consensus wrt to AGW? Precisely define AGW first. It can be used to mean different things. If you only mean that human activity (the A part), is probably having a net effect of putting upwards pressure on world temperatures (the weakest thing that could fit the GW) part), than I'd say there already is a consensus. Going to the other end of possibilities, if you mean that human emission of CO2 is the overwhelming, or at least primary cause, of an unusual upward trend in temperatures, that will not end any time soon, and will cause all sorts of severe problems if we don't strongly cut back on CO2 emissions, and that if we do make such a cutback, we will probably be ok (or at least not in nearly as bad of position as if we don't), than I'd say we are not in or even very close to a consensus. I don't think you mean the extreme mild case. I'm not sure if you mean the extreme strong case. If I had to guess I'd guess you use the term AGW to mean something between the two extremes, or that you use it to describe the whole spectrum of possibilities. If you use it to describe the whole spectrum, it might be better if you come up with different terms of phrases for different parts, because the distinction between the two possibilities is important, and someone can doubt, or even outright deny one, while accepting another.