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: Suma who wrote (223938)	3/13/2007 11:57:51 AM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Not yet. I should. I don't need any convincing. The scientific proposition that we can convert vast amounts of sequestered carbon into atmospheric CO2 AND NOT AFFECT THE CLIMATE, is not a theory which has much support. Years ago it was an OK proposition, since the various mechanism for resequestering looked like they might be able to deal with the increase. Too much data exist now to claim that the above might be true. You might notice that no anti-global warming pundit I have ever read actually phrases his/her position in words something like these: "We suggest that world climatic conditions are invariant to fossil CO2 production at current and projected world rates" The reason they don't is that this would then be a scientific proposition which they would need to develop theories, models, and data for. Their theories, models, and data would then be subject to peer review, and they would be compared in terms of accuracy with those of other scientists working the opposite side of the proposition. Instead, anti-global warming is nearly 100% about trying to say: Hey you scientists don't know everything, so you must be completely wrong. LOL!