SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Peter Dierks who wrote (140212)9/23/2005 3:48:40 PM
From: carranza2  Read Replies (2) of 794415
 
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the global warming debate can be resolved by recognizing that those who blame the greenhouse effect from increased co2 and other byproducts of human activity are likely as correct as those who blame natural cycles. Both make good arguments and neither discounts the other. Plus, it appears that the science is as good on one side of the divide as the other.

Since science is politically neutral, the problem as I see it is that there are political and economic axes to grind. But even the scientists seem to line up on one side or the other. I haven't seen anyone suggest that both natural and man-made causes might be implicated.

There is unfortunately nothing that can be done with respect to natural causes. However, there is much that can be done with respect to causes which can be controlled.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News