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 (18799)	1/7/2008 12:47:16 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

Evolution is a general concept in biology one of the reasons its so much more likely than any particular prediction of AGW theory is because its so general. Evolution is a fairly solid theory in general terms. There are gaps and uncertainties, but overall its still reasonably solid. If you go beyond "species have evolved through natural selection, artifical selection, genetic drift, gene sharing, and other methods, and try to say species A evolved in to species B which evolved in to species C, and so on through a very long list, or make other large but highly detailed claims based on the general science now your in less solid territory, your not just requiring acceptance of the general idea but also a list of more specific facts added to that idea. If you go beyond the what and try to also provide detail about exactly why, than you get even less certain. And then if you extend this in to the future you would reach a point that with our current limits of knowledge of evolution would have to be considered highly unlikely. "AGW" can mean different things. But most AGW theories are like that last time of claim mentioned above. They aren't just general statements like "human activity effects climate", or specific solid facts like (CO2 acts as a green house gas). The first would be the equivalent of evolution, the statement would be general like "species evolve over time". The 2nd would be the equivalent of some solid specific important fact like "mutations in genes can cause changes in living organisms and/or their off spring". AGW is more like the last claim. You get specific claims, and predictions of what will happen in the future. Evolution is probably less solid than climate science in terms of predictions of the future. But "evolution" doesn't evolve any specific predictions of the future. "AGW" does. Another point is that since "AGW" can mean different things, that you should make some effort to distinguish these things. An argument that supports the idea that "human activity has probably put upward pressure on global average temperatures" doesn't necessarily support that combined with "the earth has warmed and is warming and the primary (or at least a major) factor behind this recent warming is human emission of CO2, and we can be confident that this warming will continue, and will cause sea levels to rise and cause other severe problems". If by AGW you just mean the first claim well than fine, I'm an AGW supporter as well. If you mean the last claim well than its reasonable not be confident in such predictions.