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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr. Aloha who wrote (29406)	1/11/2007 10:44:56 AM
From: Metacomet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78424

Everyone has an agenda. Folks need to get a sense of what they believe thru research and observation. I'm not ready to gamble my childrens future on the naysayers read of what seems to be a mountain of empirical data supporting Gore's thesis. There is enough out there to get my attention. And it damn sure won't hurt anything if we make a commitment to reducing atmospheric CO2 to the extent we are able to. Having suffered thru the folly of not electing Gore once, I'd hate like hell to do it again. Americans have already bet, and lost, on 1 GOP instant replay. Hopefully Gore can be persuaded to take his crusade to the bully pulpit of the American presidency. (but I sure agree with you on MMG)

To: Mr. Aloha who wrote (29406)	1/11/2007 1:28:37 PM
From: koan	Respond to of 78424

Mr Aloha, I respectfully repeat what I have posted many times. Professor Lindzen of MIT and Gray in colorado have been the two primary naysayers to global warming for a long time. They appear continually on conservative shows like fox news and are quoted by many people and oil companies who do not believe, or want to believe in global warming. But the bottom line, is that they are isolated and marginalized in the scientific community. The vast majority of the PHD atmospheric chemists studying global warming disagree with both Gray and Lindzen. Professor Lindzen: "It’s not, Professor Lindzen maintains, writing that, “carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e. a greenhouse gas—albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system.”