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 of Energy
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: koan who wrote (7641)4/25/2009 8:32:22 PM
From: The Vet  Read Replies (1) of 86356
 
underestimating their knowledge.

If their knowledge and their evidence is so compelling then how come they can't, or won't explain it so that all can understand.

Even on this thread over the past few days I have posed several obvious specific questions that should be easy to answer. Several were about observed and measured temperature and CO2 level changes that followed recent volcanic eruptions. These measured observations seem to conflict with what would be expected if the current theory proposed by your experts on the links between atmospheric greenhouse gasses were actually valid, but they fit perfectly if CO2 was a RESULT of warming not a CAUSE.

Now why is it that none of your experts with their vast knowledge of the subject seem to have addressed this and other apparent conflicts, and instead resort to personal attacks or simply ignore of anything that doesn't fit into their nice neat box?
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