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: koan who wrote (44428)	11/9/2017 8:55:44 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 365526

>> That is pure bullshit. I haven't said anything about "not believing" in AGW. But it is a fact that we (me, your son, ANYONE) don't know if it is harmful, if so, how harmful it is, or whether it will ever matter at all. We DO know that as of today, right now, there have been no meaningful consequences of it. But I believe the planet is currently warming, and I do think people have made a difference (you can't put billions of people on a planet without ANY difference). But whether that difference matters, the jury is out. We are all proud of the accomplishments of our PhD children; I am. But you have to keep things in perspective. Since I am involved in the development of a product based on my daughter's invention, I see almost daily people who simply are not persuaded of its usefulness -- even though she is a PhD and the track record of the product is strong at this point. That's how life is. To make matters worse, there are some scientists whom I have idolized for years and have concluded that AGW is a problem. In some cases, personal friends. But we each have to apply our own understanding and knowledge to issues and come out with whatever our beliefs are. I am not one who believes science is to be left to the consensus. On major issues I think it is fair to say that there is seldom scientific consensus during the data gathering process, which is where we are on climate change. We have only now developed technology that allows us to develop statistically significant analysis. Your son will tell you something different, and I realize he has to believe what he tells you. So, get over it. Not everyone is going to agree on this because the evidence is very much incomplete and probably will not be adequate in your lifetime or mine. The biggest mistake we can make would be to throw money at a problem that we don't even know is really a problem. In particular, given the progress that has been made getting away from fossil fuels, it is likely to never be a major problem.

To: koan who wrote (44428)	11/10/2017 4:26:32 AM
From: Lane3	3 Recommendations Recommended By i-node James Seagrove one_less Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 365526

when I asked him how many do not believe in anthropogenic global warming he said -effectively none i.e. we know!!!! Koan, I've brought this up before. You do the notion of AGW a great disservice when you say you believe in it. We are said to believe in fairies and ghosts and deities and other supernatural entities. These are outside the scope of science. Claims of scientific validity are not expressed with "believe in" but rather "belief that" something or other has been sufficiently evidenced. In the "Evolution vs. God" propaganda piece, Ray Comfort makes a bunch of atheists look like fools in part by repeatedly saying they "believe in" evolution. We don't believe in evolution. We don't believe in gravity. They are science.