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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (100252)	2/13/2005 5:34:31 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793670

If you see a warming trend line, seems to me there must be a human factor in there somewhere. If you see an oscillating trend line, then the human factor is less salient. Just pick your time period, and voila! the oscilating trend line becomes a one-way warming trend line. Easy as pie. You do know that Europe was warmer a thousand years ago than it is today? That you could grow cabernet sauvignon grapes in southern England and olives in Cologne, when it's still too cold today to grow those crops there today?

To: Lane3 who wrote (100252)	2/14/2005 2:56:17 PM
From: Bridge Player	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793670

Karen, this is one of your more ab absurdo pieces of wordsmithing. If you see a warming trend line, seems to me there must be a human factor in there somewhere. If you see an oscillating trend line, then the human factor is less salient. An oscillating trend is, after all, one which has both up cycles and down cycles. Rather than assume, as both you and many scientists do, that the current warming cycle is due to human influence, why is it not equally logical to assume, as other scientists do, that it is simply a current up cycle part of an oscillation? The fact is, nobody knows for sure. And we may not know for hundreds of years.