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: Sam who wrote (66658)	5/19/2008 11:38:00 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542787

Can we say that a lot of the science behind tobacco warnings "is quakery and a lot of isn't"? There is no comparison between tobacco science and GW science. Tobacco science is very accessible to non scientists. A couple of science classes in junior high are enough for a lay person to fully grasp the effects of tobacco. GW has some of that. Temperatures captured over the years, ice cores, glacier retreat, ocean currents, all science that can be observed, measured, reported, just like tobacco. Once you get beyond that, you get further from hard science and more into the ether, an environment conducive to quackery as well as quasi-religiosity and science fiction. True believers don't differentiate. The rest of us must. The only thing that tobacco and GW have in common is that each has its self-interested, intentionally deceptive deniers. You cannot reasonably and legitimately generalize any broader commonality from that single shared element.