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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (14668)	4/4/2012 7:14:09 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 85487

Again that isn't true (at least your first claim that "almost all" clearly isn't true, and "most" is at least questionable) if you mean "The world is rapidly warming solely or overwhelmingly because of human emission of CO2, and this warming is clear and certain beyond all reasonable doubt, and it will cause a major disaster if we don't stop it, so we should rapidly cut back on CO2 emissions in a big way. If OTOH you mean something like "CO2 is a greenhouse gas", or "the average world temperature now is warmer than it was a hundred years ago", then almost all scientists would agree, but you would also get plenty of Republicans supporting the claim. So you can only make your point if you equivocate on the meaning of AGW. Its the first definition when your talking about Republicans (so you can say almost all of them disagree), but the later definitions, or something along those lines for the scientists (so you can say that they almost all agree). That's confusing, and unreasonable, and if you realize your doing it, dishonest. Rather than me providing some definitions, why don't you provide your own definition that almost all Republicans would disagree with but almost all scientists agree with? "AGW" can mean a lot of different specific claims, pick one and make your statement about it, rather than equivocating about different meanings of the term, or falsely representing the views that would get support from all but a tiny portion of scientists, or not get support from at least a solid minority of Republicans.