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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (51201)	3/1/2008 5:44:22 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542909

Like Dale, only probably quite a bit more limited than he, I have no background in science, and thus have no opinion on GW, other than it makes sense to me to try to limit the damage that we know we do. I realize how much harder my lungs have it in LA with their pollution and I can tell the difference here in Dallas on the red days. I don't see a whole lot of things as truly existential threats, a word that seems fraught with immense meaning. (Think Independence Day). It always surprises me when I read history, how HUGE things seemed at the time, the END OF EVERYTHING!, and how it all becomes part of the progression. We just keep going on somehow.

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (51201)	3/1/2008 5:46:23 PM
From: Cogito	Respond to of 542909

>>On a more general basis - if we are to develop a meaningful diaglog it would be helpful to know where we are all coming from. I have long ago realized that two intelligent people can look at the same facts and draw different conclusions. I have never figured out what life experiences lead to the different interpretations.<< Bob - It's not just life experiences that make the difference, I believe. A while back we were talking about the Myers-Briggs test and the way it illustrates how different people have different ways of taking in an processing information about the world. I think that those differences are largely innate. - Allen

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (51201)	3/1/2008 6:12:01 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542909

I am far more interested in area of study in regards to GW I assumed you were looking for scientific backgrounds. Mine is most definitely not. But I learned a lot about risk analysis on the job and I think that's at least as important. Even if you have a scientific background, almost no one has the particular expertise to evaluate these data.

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (51201)	3/1/2008 6:21:03 PM
From: Katelew	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542909

I have long ago realized that two intelligent people can look at the same facts and draw different conclusions. I have never figured out what life experiences lead to the different interpretations. Most of my friends are affluent and vote Republican. For the most part, I see the differences between us to be more a function of what each of us reads and listens to. For ex., my state newspaper is right-wing oriented. It's clear from the choice of editorialists the paper chooses to print as well as the news wire stories the paper chooses to re-print. Even when my paper prints a Paul Krugman editorial, it will choose one of Krugman's lesser editorials. By lesser, I mean one that's not as persuasive or one that is very inflammatory. Most of my friends are content with this paper, Fox News, and some small doses of talk radio being their main information sources, or so it seems based on their chit-chat. I don't usually hear references made to other media sources, except for CNN now and then.

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (51201)	3/1/2008 6:49:45 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 542909

I don't really care about level - I am far more interested in area of study in regards to GW. As a general rule, people who: 1) Doubt evolution and believe creationism, also doubt AGW. 2) Libertarian institutions (Cato, AEI, etc) also tend to doubt AGW. 3) Those who doubt science on other fronts, such as cancer links to smoking, also tend to doubt AGW. 4) Conservative Christians tend to doubt AGW, although this one is changing and causing turmoil in Evangelical ranks. I've long wished that PEW or some such organization would poll specifically to clarify the above links. So far, I've never read any direct poll results trying to show how strong the above correlations are, but there is a wealth of evidence, most strongly exhibited in the type and quality of arguments made in support of the respective positions. As far as area of study, generally economists and business related fields in general, tend to doubt AGW, while any disciplines exposed to biology and especially ecology, planetary science, etc, tend to support AGW science. Engineering and Medicine can fall either way, an oddity which is very well known from the evolution/creation schism.