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.

Non-Tech : Alternative energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Vet who wrote (4911)	6/11/2008 11:53:07 AM
From: Archie Meeties	Respond to of 16955

Your argument was that we should reject GM because the consensus is wrong, like eugenics was. To illustrate just how silly that is, I compared your eugenics argument to rejecting recommendations about cholesterol. In both cases the scientific community has formed a consensus. Should we reject them both? "look back at eugenics, which in the 1930's had huge "scientific" support. Global warming seems similar.." - So any matter for which there is huge scientific support should be ditched? You are just providing textbook examples of fallacious arguments. Your argument about CO2. "It's a naturally occurring gas, so why worry?" My counterargument was that Mercury is also a naturally occurring element, so why worry? Again, trying to simplify the issue of CO2 down to "does it occur in nature or not?" is clearly a silly, misinformed argument. If you want to debate global warming, you should instead find fault in scientific reports issued by the 34 international bodies of science that I referenced.