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 : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (22294)	7/19/2008 11:38:26 AM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Very few of the IPCC scientists even predict gloom and doom. That is the first mistake you make. Why not read some of their work instead of the drivel you post? Lets just look at how stupid you are: 1) Most of the recent global warming has been caused by a long, moderate, natural cycle rather than by the burning of fossil fuels; What an idiotic statement. How can the "recent global warming" be caused by a "long moderate, natural cycle"? If you want to include the warming from the LIA up until the early/mid 1900's, yes all credible scientists I know will say that is not AGW and could be described as "a long moderate, natural cycle". But that is not the "recent global warming". Conversely, there is no "long moderate, natural cycle" at work in the last 40-years of data that can account for the recent global warming. This statement clever glues two time periods together to confuse stupid people. The rest of Dennis T. Avery's statements are similar crap. See if you can figure out why!