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: combjelly who wrote (551334)	2/21/2010 10:17:58 AM
From: Taro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1588044

I know for as much as a fact our scientists can dig up, that the CO2 cycles traced the temperature cycles by aro 800 years in earth history. Thus the CO2 content increased as a consequence of each previous temperature rise - and not the other way around as you just go on 'believing'. Is that so darn difficult to understand? And please, don't start babbling about 'you-fail-to-come-up-with-an-alternative-explanation', because that is irrelevant to the fact that the CO2 hikes plotted vs. the temperature cycles track the temperature by aro 800 years. Until it sucks in with even the dumbest - or lib stubs like you - I will go on repeating the following: Temperature hike first, CO2 rise next, period! /Taro