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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Oil Sands and Related Stocks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grommit who wrote (20849)	5/18/2008 12:44:20 AM
From: The Vet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25575

OK Grommit, lets look at your first - the 6 easy steps... Step 1: There is a natural greenhouse effect. Agreed, that was never an issue. Step 2: Trace gases contribute to the natural greenhouse effect. No problem with that either. Step 3: The trace greenhouse gases have increased markedly due to human emissions. True, but the statement is coloured by the use of the word "markedly".. The author is is using descriptive language to push an agenda, not to create a balanced dialogue. Step 4: Radiative forcing is a useful diagnostic and can easily be calculated. Wow! Now we have a leap of faith, from the obvious and accepted first 3 points straight into the world of models and assumptions. Step 5: Climate sensitivity is around 3ºC for a doubling of CO2. Complete conjecture and based on the unproven premise that CO2 is the cause of all atmospheric warming in the first place. He throws in dozens of unmeasured and unmeasurable variables into the mix all, of which may, or may not be causes and produces his 3% out of the hat and attributes it to CO2. By using the number in the heading he then assumes it is correct and attempts to justify the assumption. Step 5 depends entirely on the validity of step 4 plus a lot more unknowns thrown into the mix. This is guessing, not science. Step 6: Radiative forcing x climate sensitivity is a significant number. Now he builds on the faulty assumptions of 4 and 5 to make 6. As I said earlier, garbage in = garbage out.