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 (51291)	3/1/2008 10:14:48 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 543351

Just so you don't go away with a mistaken impression, I'm not really debating global warming. I know there is data that shows the whole solar system is heating up. I don't know how much of our heating is endogenous and how much exogenous. Maybe I didn't take enough calculus, but there is a lot of material out there, and it confuses me. I think we should make plans to protect, or not build, low lying cities- but that only makes sense, with or without global warming. All I am saying is that shifts in technology can occur with lightening speed. I thought you were too dismissive of Neolib's point on technology change. I thought he made a good point there. I don't want to later hear I'm some sort of GW activist, since I'm not. I'm kind of in the middle on that issue.

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (51291)	3/1/2008 10:41:23 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543351

Below is an article that I think expresses our disconnect. Interesting piece, nicely written and argued. A bit too political but not terribly so. Best I can tell both of these folk are public policy experts, not global warming scientists. Pielke has a PhD in political science and Sarewitz writes only on policy questions. So they are trying to frame a debate, not be critical of the science. In fact, the following quote is attributed to Pielke in wikipedia: The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions. So, from even their point of view, the debate is not about whether human activity contributes to global warming but what are the best responses. That's all well and good. But the paper itself undermines, ever so slightly, the persuasive power of the argument by its use of the ideal types, Cassandra and Dorothy. Any serious reader gets turned off by that. And it's surprising from those two, given that public policy stuff is their field. You would expect them to be particularly sensitive on that score. Bob, if you don't wish to discuss this anymore, that's fine. Been fun. Do hang around.