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 (68678)	5/26/2008 8:30:46 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542214

Lomborg is a statistician. He's done some reading on climatology, but his books are largely dismissed by scientists. If you're going to read him, at least also read some other books as well. Have you read his book? He's not a skeptic, you know. Or maybe you don't. I'm not reading him for his science. Try forgetting the science for a minute. Set it aside. Fussing about his science is a distraction. Assume foe the sake of argument that the worst outcome that anyone claims is true, what are we going to do about it? What is the rational course of action? That's the question that he's trying to force. Seems to me that it's important for someone to do that. I'm not a scientist, for sure. I think like a systems analyst. And secondarily as an economist, although I have no clue where that latter came from. What is it we're trying to accomplish here? Save lives? Reduce human suffering, and if so, which lives and which human suffering. Or maybe fulfill some moral obligation to be good stewards of the earth? What? Then the question becomes, how can we best do that, what are the priorities. The essential question is not about our carbon footprint. That may be an important factor, but it's not THE question. Making it the essential question is jumping to conclusions.