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 (260836)	4/6/2008 5:55:53 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Can we also assume that you now understand that the ocean temps have been rising over the last 30-50 years, like the climate scientists have been saying? I can go better than that. We have been in a global warming trend since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1750. This date is not well-loved by the global warming crowd, however, since it predates the Industrial Revolution and thus was obviously not caused by anthropogenic carbon emissions. It's not as if the climate were stable without man's influence. Or do you think the camp-fires of neolithic hunter-gatherers ended the last Ice Age, lol? The question is not if there is warming. The question is WHY there is warming, and how much of it, IF ANY, can be proven to be anthropogenic in nature. We know that the co2 is rising in the atmosphere and there is a theory that it is driving temperatures higher. There are other theories, by equally accredited climatologists, that say the co2 is having minimal effects and that solar activity is the main driver of climate variations. If the AGW crowd want me to believe their models, they had better get more data on their side. Every model I have seen does posit a positive feedback loop between increased co2, water vapor, and therefore greenhouse effect, so they predict temperature rising with increased co2 - monotonically. If the temperature stops rising, they need to explain why. Two or three years can be a blip. Ten years starts to need an explanation. If it's thirty years, as it was in the mid 20th century, it will really need an explanation. But in that case we may be spared by the end of the global warming hysteria. If history is any guide, we'll be treated to a global cooling hysteria with hardly a break in between.