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 : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (10349)	3/12/2007 7:06:43 PM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 36917

Well, I'm glad to hear you are amused. In fact I'm amused you are amused. So... we can happily say we are all jolly and amused. Now, the question I asked was... You don't think the recent change in CO2 levels is anything to be concerned about? here.. Message 23359174 Now, a correlation might or might not exist in a complex system, I think we both know that. It is not the question I asked though. -------------------------------------------------------- (a)Bearing in mind the CO2 levels have not historically gone above 300ppm in the last 400,000 years. AND (b) What is commonly known about CO2 ---------------------------------------------------------- What is your answer to the question I asked? I suppose we could go back a little further in time and see what the answers are indicated there... clearlight.com Need we show any concern? Worth studying or not?? That's when all that oil and stuff was formed yes? \edit: Feel free to read the link in detail. I like how the the author make a comment on GW. Interesting he sees no correlation.