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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (22175)	6/20/2017 6:20:46 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 354928

I will admit I am the bigger fool than you, because I keep responding to your post which, for lack of a better word, are nuts-lol.

To: i-node who wrote (22175)	6/20/2017 8:12:26 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 354928

deleted

To: i-node who wrote (22175)	6/20/2017 8:13:52 PM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Recommended By gamesmistress Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 354928

97% of those believe in AGW! People really have to quit saying that. It gives aid and comfort to the other guys. No reputable scientist believes in AGW. Or believes in evolution. Or believes in gravity. One believes that gravity is the explanation for why we don't float. Believe that, not believe in. One may believe in poltergeists and angels and deities and ghosts. One does not believe in a heliocentric solar system. One recognizes it.

To: i-node who wrote (22175)	8/3/2017 11:44:56 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 354928

The data put in to the original 97% claim just doesn't support the claim. OTOH if you add up the people in each category in a more reasonable way the figure just comes out to low to be believed. Perhaps it wasn't the best data selection. Or really even the best type of answer to look for. The % that "believes in global warming", or even specifically "AGW" is a very vague point and doesn't really tell us much. Hell I "believe in AGW" (in quotes because it isn't the best wording of the idea of supporting a scientific theory) myself. What I don't agree with is the combination of - Human emission of CO2 is causing a massive and unprecedented amount of warming across the globe that will cause a massive catastrophe (think the combination of the world wars, the great depression and the spanish flu, not 9/11 or even something like the Haiti earthquake or the Indian Ocean tsunami), and massive and quick intervention in energy markets will stop or greatly reduce that catastrophe and do so on a cost effective basis.