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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (6867)	4/3/2009 5:05:26 PM
From: wherry	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 86356

What I find disconcerting is that so many sensible sounding statements can be made on both sides of the AGW debate. My own reaction (after lots of hard reading) is not to adopt any fixed positions for the moment, and keep studying. I hope this is not seen as a cop-out? I confess to a "common sense" bias towards the sun and its cyclical variability as the principal climate forcer of record. I also find the tactics towards their opponents of people like IPCC cheerleaders and James Hansen to be pretty nasty. Regards, Tony.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (6867)	4/3/2009 5:22:34 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

I think we can safely ignore for now, the other GHGs, since although more potent, they are a very small fraction of our atmospheric balance. However, I do not believe that the evidence is pointing to a significant amount of cooling over the next 40-100 years, as you suggest. I haven't seen compelling evidence either way to answer conclusively whether sunspots or CO2 is more impactful to temperature. Maybe they cancel each other out. Maybe CO2 wins. Maybe sunspots win. No one has shown me real evidence with R-squareds proving the point one way or another.