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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (115639)	7/16/2009 8:39:57 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541848

I don't think he's "discovered" them. It's the only shred of hope. I hope you realize many of the questions you posed there have been answered by climate scientists. There actually is a model running solar heating by itself- it does not account for the changes seen. It's a published paper. You can look it up. The ocean climate link has been studied pretty exhaustively for the last 12 years- there is some interesting new data on both the heating of the oceans and the acidifying of the oceans (related to carbon). Your snideness would be more impressive if you actually read the new data and had more than denier web sites at your disposal. But then I guess you just want to polarize the debate.

To: greenspirit who wrote (115639)	7/16/2009 8:44:11 PM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 541848

A friend of mine from college (25 years ago) was engaged with research on CFC in the atmosphere. We met in the Chemistry department where I was working at the time. There were people then that denied that CFCs damaged the ozone layer and said that it would ruin our economy to eliminate Freon. My friend later went to Harvard to get his PhD and launched balloons in Antarctica.... In the 1980's there were concerns about glaciation returning due to a few sequential years of lower temperatures, increased precipitation and increases in soot. We had incomplete models of the atmosphere - we still do and computers weren't capable of modeling parcels of air smaller than about 10 km on a side. This was also before anyone had looked at ice cores in Greenland. That was also before China and India massively industrialized and started spewing so much pollution that they have changed the sky in California. So with better data we get a more complete view - what did we know of epigenetics at the time? Nothing... but when I heard the term "junk DNA" I knew that was BS... it turns out I was right.