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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (26973)	8/25/2009 10:11:28 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Message 25891701

To: LLCF who wrote (26973)	8/26/2009 1:00:55 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Well said. What I would add, is that using simple logic, if there was only a 20% chance global warming is caused by man and could be as potentially serious a problem as the Permian age (same chemical reactions-different reasons) which wiped out 95% of all life on earth, one would see we must act with all deliberate haste to stop it! I also know that the vast majority of the top atmospheric chemists in the world feel it is more like an 80% chance GW is real, casued by man and is very serious. As the Energy Secretary and nobel prize winning Steven Chu said: "We are boiling the planet". >> 1.) I didn't say "Science" is infallible, and in the context of my post the part above about G.Warming could easily be true. 2.) The earth HAS heated up by all statistics available, making that a "fact"... ie. confirmed observation. The real issue is what part humans are playing... IMHO. 3.) It's only a knee jerk reaction if it turns out not to be the case. If you are asserting this... then (given your emotional shrillness) the real 'fervent believer' is you. There are PLENTY in the scientific community who are willing to say they don't know OR that what is shown so far is a 'best guess', etc. To repeat... your post doesnt address the greater point I made... not even close. In fact you're using ONE issue (G Warming), ONE data point, which of course in science IS like claiming magic.>>