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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Stefan who wrote (82806)	8/7/2008 7:15:04 AM
From: Dan3	Respond to of 116555

Re: Galileo and Copernicus were nuts too they defy scientific consensus as it was at the time. So called "greenhouse gases" were so named after observing the behavior of light at various frequencies. Basically, sunlight passes through them easily but heat does not. Light from the sun passes through these gasses (just like it passes through the oxygen and nitrogen that constitute most of our atmosphere). When that light hits the earth, some of it is absorbed by the ground, trees, buildings, etc. and then re-radiated as heat (which is actually a much lower frequency "light"). Heat can also pass fairly easily through oxygen and nitrogen, but it gets trapped by "greenhouse" gases. That's it. Nothing to "theorize" about. Nothing to argue about. Get yourself a clear plastic bag, something dark to put inside it, and a thermometer, if you have any doubts. Vary the concentration of greenhouse gases in the bottle and see what happens. Arguing against the earth being warmed by greenhouse gases is like arguing the earth is flat. You can certainly propose "so what?" as an argument - maybe we're better off with a warmer earth (it's quite possible). But anyone who claims current emissions aren't causing global warming is either a liar or an ignorant dupe.

To: Stefan who wrote (82806)	8/7/2008 11:18:53 AM
From: koan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

Stefan: " Galileo and Copernicus were nuts too they defy scientific consensus as it was at the time. I would not use majority or consensus in science as a fact – show me concrete evidence. By the way where is the “ether” that was so well described in the early 20th century? Keep in mind that scientists have agenda just like politicians; it never hurts to be skeptical! KOAN: not quite. Galileo and Coprenicus were jailed and almost tortured and killed by the church for heresy, (which is what the church did to heretics in those days). Their crime: saying the earth revolved around the sun! They called that era the dark ages, because the church did not allow any dissent (or science that challenged the church's teachings) upon penalty of torture and death. No one on earth more skeptical than me, but being skeptical when the vast majority of the best scientific minds are telling us we are in danger is not so smart. Prudent caution would make more sense to me. If you are walking through the forest and natives tell you a rabid bear or tiger is killing people and to be careful, I would think prudent caution would be more important than skepticism.