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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (391687)	6/17/2008 1:01:13 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 1576956

Eric, > That's how it's always been described in scientific literature - to you it's a major issue and some it's a pollutant. Been over this before: Message 24381659 By the way, here's a little irony, from one of the believers: > I just find the argument "it isn't a pollutant unless I say it is" not very compelling. Message 24382077 Tenchusatsu

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (391687)	6/17/2008 10:38:57 AM
From: Taro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576956

Those Danes are a hell of a lot more clever than Algore and his believers. I know that for a fact, right from the inside because I spent 10 years in college there :) Taro

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (391687)	6/17/2008 3:36:54 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576956

You refer to a compound that is one of the most important on this planet and essential to the survival of the human race as a trace gas That's how it's always been described in scientific literature - to you it's a major issue and some it's a pollutant. Its a major issue because its presence in the atmosphere is varying from the statistical norm. Any significant deviation should be questioned......don't you agree? you then refer to a link from newscrap to support your position So the idea the sun is causing warming is so harmful to your assumptions you'd attack the paper that published the story as opposed to considering the data and the fact the charts of global temps to solar radiation align far better than CO2 to temp, where I might add CO2 lags temp. As far as I know, Newsmax is not a paper but a web site......one that has been consistently unreliable in the news it reports. The alignment is so good it even aligns during the 1940-1980's cooling period - unlike CO2 and temp. I am not disputing your claim. It may be right.....I have admitted previously I am not a scientist. But why are you so opposed to reducing our consumption of fossil fuels?