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 (21015)	3/26/2008 7:27:32 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

Ok, you go out and find the best explanation you can in basher land for this minor little problem and I'd love to read it. Hopefully, you find a peer reviewed paper, with lots of scientists thinking the explanation is at least interesting, even if only speculative at this time. Please do try, I'm very eager to consider your discovery with an open, but of course critical, mind. Surely this is how you would like me to approach it. BTW, ignoring the 800lb gorilla in the data which is at variance with their nutcase "theories" is another commonality between creationists and AGW bashers. To you, it would appear that there is absolutely no issue why anyone should be concerned about matching this fact of the data. You just have to understand CO2 began having a different effect once humans began burning fossil fuels. How did it magically change it's effects? That is news to me. Sounds like you think CO2 was not a GHG in the past? What a nutcase idea. CO2 has not changed its behavior in the atmosphere at all, and nobody should expect it to have.