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: neolib who wrote (18791)	12/21/2007 6:04:34 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

Why play dense? Your not being clear, and then me asking what you mean, isn't an example of me playing dense. The very well known basher argument posted too many times here (I'll bet you have used it yourself in posts) that since CO2 lags temps in the historical record, therefore AGW cannot be true. Phrased that way its obviously a faulty argument, but I don't think that is the actual argument usually presented. What's faulty about it is the "cannot be true" part. The argument doesn't provide any evidence that AGW cannot be true. It doesn't even show it isn't true (an easier hurdle than "can not be true"). This might be the argument that is typically made. If your trying to attack this argument you might have some point, but attacking "cannot be true", is attacking a straw man. It does however show that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is not a simple easily predictable relationship, except perhaps if you isolate or ignore all other factors, which is not something you can do in the real world. 1) That CO2 will not be driven by solar (or other for that matter) temp forcing. 2) That CO2 cannot itself also cause temp forcing. I would not support or argue for either idea. Please define exactly what you mean by "the CO2/temp phase argument."