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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (20468)	6/4/2017 12:09:02 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 357195

>> Well the real world is testing the theories now in the only real way that can determine the outcome on such a scale. Pump the atmosphere full of CO2 - and watch the results. Unfortunately, it isn't that simple. First, we don't know what "full of CO2" is. Secondly, and more importantly, you can't control for other variables some of which are surely not even identified at this point. So, you can only speculate that Co2 might have something to do with the result. If you raise Co2 to 600ppm maybe it gets hotter, maybe it doesn't. You still don't know whether the CO2 caused it. Sorry, that's just how this works. At this point it is unknown whether Co2 is a primary driver of global warming. Everyone has an opinion I suppose. But what we need is proof.

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (20468)	6/4/2017 9:00:01 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 357195

That is why I don't get the decision. I suggest that's because you're assuming that it's a decision about global warming but it's not. It's about reasserting and reinforcing a Trump/Banyon world view. It's about bucking up the base by scoring against the enemy globalists and elitists. In that context, it makes sense.