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: Sdgla who wrote (10312)	6/30/2009 11:23:48 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

I've been reading what I can re phytoplankton since re your posts..very interesting study with very little mention in the media. Yep.. very little mention. I guess that's why I'm a bit "OCD" about the issue. IMO, it's a "no-brainer" that CO2 levels are rising when phytoplankton levels are declining. Everything in our known science stipulates that adding more of a critical element for floral growth should stimulate plant life. If one of those elements is deficient, then flora will remain dormant. So John Martin really clued into what was actually occurring with oceanic phytoplankton. The guy deserves a Nobel prize, IMO. earthobservatory.nasa.gov Hawk

To: Sdgla who wrote (10312)	7/1/2009 12:18:01 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 86355

Some more reading FYI on oceanic phytoplankton and CO2: usjgofs.whoi.edu Hawk

To: Sdgla who wrote (10312)	7/1/2009 1:06:55 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 86355

GW is a religion now and its minions cannot be swayed by facts. Actually, it's just the opposite, IMO. The people who deny climate change can't seem to deal with facts, which is why they keep making up or distorting so many of them. BTW, I don't think Hawk denies climate change, he just doesn't think that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause. I'm sure he'll correct me if I am wrong about that. (Actually, I don't think it is the only cause either, but nevermind that.) Here is a compilation of skeptics' arguments and answers to them: grist.org And here is a great site with essays on how we came to the understanding of climate change that most scientists currently share: aip.org

To: Sdgla who wrote (10312)	7/2/2009 7:56:00 AM
From: RetiredNow	Respond to of 86355

I think there's truth to that. When Al Gore started his tour, he politicized what had been a growing, multi-disciplinary, scientific consensus. That level of politicization has tarnished the image of the AGW scientific findings, because it gives opposition a nice target, so they can avoid the overwhelming evidence that is being found in many different scientific disciplines all pointing in the same direction. In the scientific method, there are two tenets that scientists follow. There's the null hypothesis and statistical analysis to prove or disprove it. But there's also the balance of evidence approach, where you start to see many different disciplines investigating aspects of a problem. When all those disciplines start to find evidence that points to a theory being correct, there is a tipping point where the evidence becomes overwhelming. That leads to a scientist believing the probability is high that the theory is correct. That is what happened with AGW after decades of multi-disciplinary research.