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: neolib who wrote (226479)	4/8/2007 5:48:59 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You have pointed out one thing correctly. The right wing's attack on global warming science is largely driven by economic wishes The left has this habit of declaring that nasty partisan politics is whatever the right does. While the left is pure as the driven snow and untainted by partisan or economic motives. Surely you don't believe this. I understand very well that there are models of the greenhouse effect. I also understand that the greenhouse effect is a small part of the climate, which is a tightly coupled, dynamic, non-linear and chaotic system - and yes, I do understand what that means. I do not believe that the science as it stands can predict the climate as a whole, and I have not seen any evidence to the contrary. Instead, they talk about the greenhouse gas models as if the models had been verified by independent observation. They haven't. The global warming catastrophists first set off my bs detectors when they denied the existence of the medieval warm period and the little ice age, that I knew existed from historical studies. They haven't done anything to reassure me since. Please show me the scientific paper that has figured out how to distinguish the part of global warming that is manmade from that which has been going on since the end of the little ice age.