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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (536434)	12/14/2009 2:36:22 PM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Respond to of 1578704

>>> He's not arguing against warming...he's questioning CO2 as the cause... He IS doubting CO2 as the cause, but he seems pretty unconvinced as to the veracity of the warming argument, too: "The threat of not only oceanic cycles cooling the earth, but the suns lack of intensity and increased volcanic and seismic activity could mean that as some papers in the early 90s (and dismissed by many) opined we would be as cold as back in the early 1800s." At any rate, if you can prove the earth is warming (which hasn't been done to a lot of people's satisfaction, apparently to include Bastardi, who knows more than you and me put together about it) but can't prove CO2 is causing it, the entire issue is a nonstarter. You don't go throwing trillions of dollars at a problem you can't prove exists. To take the other view, if someone could prove the earth is in fact warming but would accept that CO2 might not be the cause, I think people would be glad to continue further investigation. The problem here is that you people want to throw trillions of dollars at a perceived problem based on junk science that can't even prove the existence of the problem, let alone what's causing it. That isn't science at all. That's witchcraft.