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 (19820)	1/27/2008 6:22:39 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

Yes most he laws of science detail how various phenomena behave within certain constraints. And many detail exactly what outcomes will occur. Brillant engineers and scientists like myself have come with measurements and techniques of measurement that verify exactly what outcomes will occur within 1 part in an exa,exa,exa part. That is the accuracy that leads to the miracles of modern technology. And those who know science laws know CO2 has no properties that at current or twice current atmospheric concentration would cause or drive global warming. that being case, why would any rational person care if the earth is warming or cooling because of whatever non CO2 causes. Other than to prepare for what might be predicted. But the fact that currently their is exa,exa,exa,exa,exa,exa to little data to predict more accurately then flipping a coin what will happen next month, there is little value in planning beyond normal cautions. The hoax of the fecal brained required some man produced danger to fleece the ignorant. I personally hope the planet is still warming and will keep warming for centuries.

To: neolib who wrote (19820)	2/18/2008 11:36:13 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

"Evolution deniers deny a lot more than life descending from a common ancestor." This is the only thing they are really interested in denying. No it isn't. They also deny much more recent evolution. (If you argued that there where ten thousand separate initial common ancestors a billion years ago they would still disagree with you. And as I said before, pick one opinion about the solidity of evolution. Its either solid, in which case skepticism about a number of global warming claims doesn't resemble skepticism about evolution. Or evolutionary theory isn't solid, in which case skepticism about it is reasonable. Either way its unreasonable to flip flop between the two points, arguing that evolution is shaky (so that it resembles the predictions of those arguing about a serious global warming problem), but also solid (so that those who are skeptical about it are deserving or ridicule, or at least are unreasonable. Have it one way, or have it the other, but you can't have it both ways.