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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (139840)	9/21/2005 10:49:00 AM
From: Oral Roberts	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793964

Weren't they back in the 70's saying a new ice age was imminent? Natural cycles won't get you headlines or funding so today global warming is the theme of the day.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (139840)	9/21/2005 1:13:28 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

The debate on the causes of global warming can be difficult because models change their results dramatically with a very small variation in data and the data is itself not exact, at least not exact enough to provide anyone with a sense of accuracy. So what may cause global warming is certainly open to reasonable and informed discussion. My preference, if you will, is that CO2 and other gasses, including water vapor, are creating a greenhouse effect. Increased solar radiation may also be contributing. What is not debatable is the one degree F rise in temperature over [I think] a century or so in the Northern Hemisphere. The evidence for it I think is overwhelming and includes Artic ice cap melting and a host of other things. If CO2 doesn't cause it, at least partially, I will be very surprised. Warming, whatever its cause, is causing a lot of problems. Because CO2 is particularly noxious in this sense thanks to the time it takes for nature to process it into a solid, we ought to do what we reasonably can to reduce it. In my view, this includes using lots more nuclear, wind and solar power and doing whatever we can technolgically to capture it into a solid basis. Kyoto is properly a joke as the horse is out of the barn in this respect. The real problem is that using fossil fuels is far and away the most cost efficient way of extracting energy from nature. Until that changes, we are probably on a collision course with nature and nature, as K. showed, always wins. Water vapor is a different thing. If I recall correctly, it rises and falls periodically, but I might be wrong.