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: DavesM who wrote (187758)	5/31/2006 9:25:55 AM
From: neolib	Respond to of 281500

Well, hawk has a point that shouldn't be completely discounted. Hawk was equating plausibility with theory. They are not the same. Fifty - 100 years ago, the notion that CO2 might cause global warming was also just a conjecture. It has had a long history with much work to resolve the major details and obtain agreement with the data. The background noise of variability is quite high, and as far back as the 1970's or 80's(IIRC) computations were made suggesting that the CO2 effect on warming should become clear around the year 2000, and that prediction has been borne out. There is nothing wrong with suggesting additional mechanisms, but two things are required: 1) They must fit the data 2) and must provide additional details showing why the fit of the prior theory was in error. Handwaving does not accomplish this.