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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Win Smith who wrote (31756)	6/6/2002 9:58:52 PM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You can go with the bloviating pundits flacking for the Friends of Cheney, or you can go with the consensus of scientists working in the field. Win, There is less scientific consensus on the issues surrounding global warming than you suggest. The scientist in the 'global warming' field are there because they find the data and theory compelling. There are many earth scientist who have not entered the new field because they are uncompelled. At a minimum there is room for debate. Calling people who disagree with your opinion 'bloviating pundits' is unhelpful. Paul

To: Win Smith who wrote (31756)	6/7/2002 2:06:36 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

Win, This reply is quite undeserved. I didn't quote one pundit, bloviating or otherwise, the facts I cited are all undisputed, and I said that I found the issue confusing. It's hard to know how much weight to give to man's input into global warming when we were getting warmer anyhow before the industrial revolution started. If we don't understand the climate changes over the last thousand years, how can you believe the models? It's not as though climate would be a steady state if there were no humans on the earth. Despite what the press releases of the Sierra Club imply.