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: Lane3 who wrote (66644)	5/19/2008 7:59:14 AM
From: DanD	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542785

The truth is, I think, that a lot of it is quack and a lot of it isn't. But there's no exchange going on in the truth zone, only shouting from the dueling poles. The way the GW argument stands now is: Both sides pretty much agree that the earth has warmed at a disproportionate historical rate. But don't agree on CO2 as the reason. cnas.org OR oism.org If anyone here can claim to understand the science better than the "experts" on either side of the argument, I would say, "riiiiiight." And thus the problem we all face.

To: Lane3 who wrote (66644)	5/19/2008 8:25:43 AM
From: biotech_bull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542785

But there's no exchange going on in the truth zone, only shouting from the dueling poles Ain't that the truth! We may be getting close to a bifurcation or crossover point for a Chaotic system. How close & how soon is impossible to prove, even with the most sophisticated models, till it happens. And a chaotic system can get close to the crossover point and return back to a normal cycle without crossing over. I agree with Bob, one can't give away the house on the premise the sky is falling. And we can't afford to make the mistake of assuming GW is a false alarm. To use a Bridge analogy, one has got to make a safety play to ensure the contract. There will be some economic pain. But I wouldn't want the GW alarmists to be in charge of the policy changes - but someone who can see both sides of the equation.

To: Lane3 who wrote (66644)	5/19/2008 9:53:59 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542785

. Based on what we read and hear, it's framed either as all gospel or all quack depending on the pole of the source. The truth is, I think, that a lot of it is quack and a lot of it isn't. You should read The Discovery of Global Warming, by Spencer Weart. A good beginning to understand the science and how climatologists came to their current understanding. You should read Steve Luntz's 2002 (maybe 2000?) memo to Republicans saying that the science is closing against them, but they can still spread confusion and uncertainty. You should read about campaigns to create exactly the thought in your second sentence above. They aren't based on science, they are based on politics, hatred of government regulation, and higher taxes. They use the tobacco campaigns of the 60s and 70s as their model. Can we say that a lot of the science behind tobacco warnings "is quakery and a lot of isn't"? Here is Weart's web site: aip.org It has what is in the book, plus more. Here is one good essay on the site: aip.org