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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Little Joe who wrote (7552)	4/26/2009 7:35:07 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86356

I don't think you've been reading on this thread very long. I've personally seen just as many good arguments for why humans may not be the root cause of global warming as I've seen reasons for why humans are the root cause. So arguments both ways are being offered. You may only be reading the arguments you agree with, but I read both, because I am innately curious. Having said that, when you deny the value of consensus, I have to simply correct you, because you aren't thinking clearly. Hell, markets work the way they do because of consensus. Go read up on the efficient market hypothesis. Scientific theory works much the same way. Theories are proposed, data is collected, regression analysis is performed, conclusions are made. In climate change science, multiple different branches of science have looked at it from different perspectives and most are coming to the same conclusion using different sets of data from their own disciplines. That is why the consensus on manmade global warming is so powerful. In a diversified, multi-disciplinary approach, the data-based conclusions are in alignment. Could they all be wrong? Yes. that is also the way science works. It's all probabilities. However, rational decision making means betting with the odds, not against them.