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 (7568)	4/25/2009 12:56:02 AM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

The scientific community has a collective opinion about global Warming. And whoes opinion do you think trumps theirs? >>Then Bush's head guy for GW was caught rewriting scientific reports about global warming and he quit the next day. He was softening the scientists conclusions. That's the ENTIRE POINT.. those scientists were making CONCLUSIONS when it's pretty damn obvious that the jury is still out on global warming. Climatic change YES.. long-term global warming??? NO!! The President's chief scientist HAS THE RIGHT to require further evidence, especially in light of of the distorted and manipulated "hockey stick" reports. With all climatic change, there are winners and losers. Maybe polar bears might suffer, but other fauna will flourish with warmer temperatures (and certainly flora as well). But if we have global cooling, the polar bears might STILL suffer or flourish, but other fauna and flora are going to suffer. Hawk >> Report TOU Violation

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (7568)	4/26/2009 7:48:49 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

You answered a question in the negative when all the data isn't in yet. Right now, with the data we have, it the sunspot theory doesn't seem to be sufficient enough to counterbalance the longer term warming trend. However, in another 20 years, we may be able to say more conclusively whether the opposite is in fact true. But I wouldn't be so sure as you right at this moment. The last 24 years have shown warming, even though we reached a sunspot maximum in 1985. Why would it warm despite a distinct sunspot downtrend? That tells me that the sunspot theory is not ironclad as the prime root cause for climate change. Again, those on this thread that point out that those who claim only one variable has predominance are probably correct. climate is a complex engine and I'd be more likely to believe there are many variables in play, that combined make up the 90% of the climate change variability. CO2 levels and sunspot activity simply seem to be two good countervailing candidates at this point.