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 : John Pitera's Market Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Poet who wrote (11670)	2/3/2009 10:14:36 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	8 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 33421

I have been posting about the fallacies in the global warming argument for a year now (you can verify that by searching the word "global" on the galapagos thread). I only just recently mentioned Gore. To suggest that I am dismissing global warming or climate change because of Gore is ignoring the truth. But you are right, it would be dangerous thinking, just like it would be dangerous thinking to believe in it based on they hype that Gore is in no small degree responsible for. Global warming should have remained a scientific discussion. It became an economic and political discussion when politicians got involved before understanding the facts.

To: Poet who wrote (11670)	2/3/2009 9:57:13 PM
From: Hank Scorpio	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 33421

"To dismiss the idea of climate change by dismissing Gore is potentially dangerous thinking, IMO. Gore and climate change are separate issues." Quite the contrary, given this man's past track record, the fact that he is heavily involved in this CO2 farce is one of the best reason's I can come up for being skeptical. Anyone can see with even the most passive amount of observation that climate change occurs all the time. Believing that it is caused in any significant manner by humans cannot be any more than a leap in logic. And a dangerous one. I would hope the debate would morph back to a 'pollution' debate, as that is one that does not need to be politicized in order to make sense. CO2 is not pollution.