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: Taro who wrote (391721)	6/17/2008 12:07:16 PM
From: d[-_-]b	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576159

Sure, and that was after it had been falling for the previous 30 consecutive years. The largest increase in CO2 emissions occurred right after WW2 up until 1980 and it still went down - all the while scientists claiming the next ice age was upon us. Of course if you compare temperature to solar radiation they align perfectly during both up and down swings - could it be the Sun causing temp variations due to increased water vapor - the biggest component of the green house effect? Of course these same dimwits claim from 1850 to 1940 the temp rose due to CO2 even though our CO2 output lagged the temp by years - yet once again measured radiation aligns perfectly.

To: Taro who wrote (391721)	6/17/2008 4:04:41 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576159

In the 1980's, finally, the global annual mean temperature curve started to rise. Sure, and that was after it had been falling for the previous 30 consecutive years. No one has said that the temps would go straight up. In fact, its believed some parts of the planet, including Europe, will be cooler under global warming. Nonetheless, the point that I keep making but that you all seem to want to ignore is what's wrong with burning less fossil fuels whether there's GW or not? I look forward to your answer, o wise one!