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: Wharf Rat who wrote (260882)	4/7/2008 6:07:01 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I noticed you omitted the reply: Dr Svensmark himself was unimpressed by the findings. "Terry Sloan has simply failed to understand how cosmic rays work on clouds," he told BBC News. "He predicts much bigger effects than we would do, as between the equator and the poles, and after solar eruptions; then, because he doesn't see those big effects, he says our story is wrong, when in fact we have plenty of evidence to support it." I would add a simple point of logic: that the article sets up a false dichotomy between Dr Svensmark's theory and the current climate models, to wit, that if one is shown to be incorrect, the other must be perfectly correct. To be expected from the BBC I suppose, but still utterly false. Svensmark's theory is not some logical opposite of the greenhouse effect, whose existence he does not try to deny; it is rather the case of two rival groups of scientists trying to figure out the effects of two simultaneous forces, which they both agree exist, on one climate system. Even if Svendmark's theory were found to be false it would not prove the accuracy of the current climate models. It would only remove one potential reason for their inaccuracy, leaving others.