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: Brumar89 who wrote (20241)	2/11/2008 2:16:31 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

But because such a pattern leads to warmer than normal conditions in areas where the greatest centers of human induced global warming information comes out of, western Europe and the eastern part of North America, no attention is being called to the fact that the winter this year does have outstandingly large areas of colder than normal temperatures and in areas, the vast expanses of the tropical Pacific, and the vast expanse of the air above us.” When proponents of CC point to increased hurricane activity or increased freakish weather events as consistent with increased CO2 in the atmosphere and consistent with the general CC hypothesis, CC deniers say nonsense. But then they go and point to things like the above, that "no attention is being called to the fact that the winter this year does have outstandingly large areas of colder than normal temperatures" as evidence that CC is nonsense. The truth is, however, that no single season or weather event "proves" anything. This doesn't mean that CC isn't falsifiable, as some deniers claim. The theory of CC is grounded on a comprehensive understanding of how climate works in general, combined with observations about things like species movements (plant and animal; earlier or later migrations, found in higher elevations than normal for the first time, disappearing from lower elevations for the first time, etc.), statistical averages, glacier retreats, atmospheric measurements, etc. It is a fundamental misunderstanding to point to specific weather events as "evidence." Of course, those who don't read any of the literature will continue to do it anyway, and will continue to show their basic ignorance, as they aren't particularly interested in truth, they just want to score "points," however meaningless those points actually are.