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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (301581)	8/28/2006 5:45:56 PM
From: Taro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579770

Anyway, global warming or not, the current debate of relevance is about man made global warming and not about about global warming per se. In particular it's all about the current global warming as a possible result of the human industrialization, which for all practical reasons occured during the last 150 years max. So what we are really trying to do here is using the (distant) past to extend a graph beyond say 1860 until today the way it would have looked with no human "interference" and compare that to observed data on record, where the "manmade" global warming would come up as a positive delta between observed temperatures and what the extended curves would have been. No more, no less. Data older than that only serves the purpose to demonstrate warming and cooling cycles prior to human activities while trying to extract behavior patterns radically different from our times. Global warming for 10,000 years right now? Sure. Man made global warming on top of that for the last 70 years? No conclusive evidence of that at all. Global cooling for about 30 years from the '60s through the '90's, sure. But other than that, isn't it obvious that we ought to have a man made global warming the way we burn off fossil energy?? Sure, better believe that! Taro