[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: News Advisory: Still Crazy After Oil These Years!
In article <31F9853D.3835@patriot.net>,
William R Stewart <wstewart@patriot.net> wrote:
>snark@swcp.com wrote:
>> >(Brian Carnell) wrote:
>> >: What do you consider substantial?
>> [Nudds:]
>> > On a personal scale, anything over 10%.
>> You certainly have that. I think that most would say that 20+% would
>> qualify as "substantial."
>"Most" who? Who do you believe you speak for?
Myself, at least--that's why I said "I think," rather than claiming it
as a fact. Do you, perhaps, consider 20% to be "not substantial?"
>> >On a more scientific scale,
>> >any increase that is sufficient to measurably alter the climate or
>> >biosphere.
>> Hmmm...measurable in what sense? In the IPCC sense of "we're fairly
>> sure that anthropogenic global warming has occurred," or in the IPCC
>> sense of "but we can't quantify it at all." [paraphrased]
>Climatic disruption just doesn't produce a nice, neatly quantifiable number.
>This sort of response is just another denial mechanism in the form of
>straw clutching.
Quoting the IPCC Report is a denial mechanism? Or are you saying that
the IPCC is exhibiting "denial?" Your response is confusing.
I'm trying to find out what Scott means by "measurably alter the
climate or biosphere." Perhaps you can tell us.
>Will Stewart
snark
References: