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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (190761)	7/3/2006 3:15:30 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

We know that carbon has risen in the past 100 years. That is not the question. But many factors have changed during that period, not just the burning of fossil fuels. Number of humans/animals on the planet, forest cover, etc, have also changed radically. So the extent of the influence of burning fossil fuels, as opposed to these other factor, is questionable. And the function of the higher co2 levels is also questionable, as the reaction with the chief greenhouse gas, water vapor, is still under debate. So could you provide a model for these alternate theories? Do they comprehensively fit the data, or do they simply raise plausible sounding objections so that those who wish to doubt might feel more comfortable in their ignorance? A casual look at creation/evolution in the USA will provide all the insight one needs to understand such debates. Science is about understanding and fitting the mean, not the legal "beyond reasonable doubt" of your average jury. Many very intelligent people confuse the two. They have nothing in common.