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: The Vet who wrote (7643)	4/25/2009 11:15:37 PM
From: koan	Respond to of 86356

GW is too complicated to explain in its totallity. Like trying to explain how to make a nuclear weapon; and Neither you or I are qualified to debate it. And throwing out amaturish quesions at one another just devolves into arguing. We must listen to the majority of the worlds scientists. Not just on this issue, but myriad issues. >> underestimating their knowledge. If their knowledge and their evidence is so compelling then how come they can't, or won't explain it so that all can understand. Even on this thread over the past few days I have posed several obvious specific questions that should be easy to answer. Several were about observed and measured temperature and CO2 level changes that followed recent volcanic eruptions. These measured observations seem to conflict with what would be expected if the current theory proposed by your experts on the links between atmospheric greenhouse gasses were actually valid, but they fit perfectly if CO2 was a RESULT of warming not a CAUSE.>>