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 (898886)	11/5/2015 3:12:30 PM
From: Bonefish	1 Recommendation Recommended By locogringo Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574205

You are correct. Now use the same logic on arctic ice and gw in General. You can shoot holes in that too.

To: combjelly who wrote (898886)	11/5/2015 3:30:41 PM
From: locogringo	1 Recommendation Recommended By jlallen Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574205

Your amusement may be premature. Your argument is well stated and is not hysterical with paragraphs of name calling................however your Scientific American study is filled with these words. So your conclusion may be premature. wary..........pried open a long-standing debate............why the community is uncomfortable with this result.............the authors predict that the trend of ice mass gain could reverse in about 20 to 30 years(underline by me) The IPCC has estimated that meltwater from Antarctica could raise sea levels by between 2.2 to 5.5 inches by 2100. But the new findings suggest that Antarctica is currently not contributing to sea-level rise at all but helping to check it by stashing away 0.23 millimeter of fresh water every year. In conclusion....Before plunging into the debate about sea-level rise, other scientists called for more careful scrutiny of findings from this study. That was NOT the conclusion from the genius named Zax, was it?