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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JeffA who wrote (87155)	2/6/2007 12:51:15 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 173976

good find. I'm gonna steal it

To: JeffA who wrote (87155)	2/6/2007 1:38:35 PM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 173976

Notice the author does not deny that the earth is warming. Notice also the author does not deny that carbon dioxide is increasing. No mention of Methane. The author denies that increased carbon dioxide is causing global warming but offers no evidence to support his assertion.

To: JeffA who wrote (87155)	2/6/2007 2:31:29 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Respond to of 173976

Well, let's review what we know: 1) CO2 emissions are increasing. 2) The additional CO2 is due to human activities. 3) CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere at a rate of an additional 1.5 ppm per year. 4) There is a well-established, historically demonstrated correlation between CO2 and global temperature. What is contended: The causal link between CO2 and global temperature. Their correlation is real and demonstrated; what is not fully demonstrated is whether additional CO2 causes higher global temperatures, or if it's the other way around. Most pertinent scientists (those who actually are actively studying this area) believe that the rising CO2 and other CO2-like gases are causing the higher temperatures. Skeptics, who may believe it is the other way around, cannot seem to produce peer-reviewed studies to show any other cause of rising temperatures (there are hypotheses on the Suns magnetic field and its effect on cloud cover, by even this doesn't explain the sharp increase in temperatures). It is important to include 'peer-reviewed', because that is the mechanism where scientists check each others work (remember the debacle of 'cold fusion' a number of years ago, and how peer-review failed to reproduce that miracle). I don't know if this Dr. Ball has any peer-reviewed studies to show a countertheory as to where the warming is coming from. That may or may not be the source of the apparent rancor he mentions from other scientists. They're a tribal lot, and will eat any of their own that don't follow the established scientific methods. However, his citing of Michael Crichton, a science fiction writer with a science background, severely damages his credibility. This debate smacks of the 'intelligent design' debate. The proponents of 'intelligent design' offer a hypothesis, but no scientific study or method to back it up. On the other hand, there is much data and study behind the CO2->warming theory. Critics of the scientific community often do not understand the scientific method, and therefore believe the political hacks who claim bias. You cannot 'wish' your idea from hypothesis to theory to law; it must be established by measurable, observable data and analysis.