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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alomex who wrote (164896)	7/26/2001 10:18:21 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 769670

As I read your dialog I kind of felt that your position was as you stated. But I saw or felt some fuzziness in what I understood. So I identified that I had researched the issue a bunch and my lives work was in evaluating complex science and complex technology and I am very highly skeptical of any global warming due to CO2. I also pointed to an article that answered for me question I had about the apparent data the said warming was occurring that suggested a correlation. Climate is mostly controlled by solar variability and the fact that CO2 greenhouse effect is swamped by the albedo effect of clouds. Also CO2 increases may dramatically increase the growth of vegetation and the rate CO2 dissolves into the ocean. This is like an automatic gain control. Now I see the CO2 hysteria as a way to justify nukes. Now Nukes are good because acid rain and spewing all kinds of tons of other stuff burning coal and wasting oil and natural gas to create electricity is a bad idea. Also solar and alternative that need batteries mean mountains of battereies with who know what chemicals all over the place. nuke waste is concentrated and it's disposal is well thought out and suffers only from political FUD. As you say all sides put forth flawed or poor science theories but my evaluation of all side find all GW by CO2 theory very wanting. tom watson tosiwmee