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: Brumar89 who wrote (9035)	6/5/2009 9:00:27 AM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

NASA has said for a long time that sunspots have a causal reaction (positive correlation) with temperature. Everyone knows that. In fact, if someone denies it, then they are simply ignoring the evidence. The pertinent question, however, is whether it is the PRIME cause or just another variable in the equation. Most scientists now believe that CO2 causes more of the warming of surface temperatures than sunspots can explain. I've posted articles from NASA as well that shows that both CO2 and sunspots have positive correlations, but that CO2 explains more of temperatures variation than does sunspots. Anyway, who cares? I'm more interested in oil independence for economic and national security reasons. Climate benefits are a nice bit of icing on the cake.