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: average joe who wrote (21003)	3/26/2008 3:09:50 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

I'm certainly not an atheist but I don't pretend to understand the mind of God anymore than I understand the natural evolutionary process. If I sometimes sound like I think all you AGW bashers are anti-science, it is simply because not a single one of the frequent posters with that bent here show much understanding of science, be it evolution, climate, ecology, etc. I have zero problem with intelligent critiques of climate science. We need all the intelligent critiques we can get. What we don't need are statements frequently made by AGW bashers which reveal that they are fundamentally clueless about science, OR they are being intentionally duplicitous. Examples are: 1) In the historical record, CO2 leads temps, therefore CO2 does not cause warming and AGW can't be true. 2) You can't predict the weather, therefore you can't trust climate models. 3) This decade, or decade X shows the climate models are wrong. 4) Its the Sun, its cosmic rays, its the oceans, its bla bla, where they lack data that fits the physics, yet they are sure it must work somehow (beyond their understanding of course). There are many more. When people make those poor of statements, I tend to throw out everything they say, because I know that they are either fools or knaves, and I really don't care which. My bad for being so quick to do this, but why can't we find some decent, honest, intelligent, AGW sceptics? One thing I do know is we have to take immediate action to combat non-anthropogenic global coooling, i.e. nonAGC. Where is your data? You want immediate action so the problem must be immediate, not the next ice age I assume? If we have several decades of significant decline, plus we can attribute the decline to some measured physical cause, I'll agree with you. It just might happen.