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: RetiredNow who wrote (14617)	12/5/2009 2:01:46 AM
From: Hawkmoon	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

In fact, global warming science is multi-disciplinary and all branches of it have used different data sets and still pointed to the same conclusion. You need to stop drinking the Kool Aid Mind Melt. I've never seen any one bring up the issues I've discussed vis-a-vis CO2 levels versus depleted phytoplankton. All they discuss is ocean acidification, and that's only recently in the past few years. And VERY FEW GW advocates discuss Sunspot activity as an influence, DESPITE THE HISTORICAL RECORD that reflects the Maunder Minimum (mini-ice age) of just a few hundred years ago. GW science has NEVER been a slam dunk and there's been FAR TOO MUCH manipulation of the data (hockey stick.. etc) to draw any credible conclusions. And the CRU was the PRE-EMINENT "clearing house" for GW models upon when the IPCC was formulating policy. Hell.. the very fact that we have two separate scientific studies drawing opposite conclusions about the plight of Aspen Groves should be sufficient to proclaim that it's too early to draw any conclusions on whether we have GW or not. And I can tell you this. I would LOVE to see some GW right now. It was 12 degrees this morning where I am. And I see that Houston had it's earliest snow far on record. Hawk