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: i-node who wrote (21256)	6/10/2017 3:10:03 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 356263

Message 30984413

To: i-node who wrote (21256)	6/10/2017 9:04:52 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 356263

Not really. It actually does matter if you strike a match every 15 minutes. Just as it matters if it is just the strike or the match burning out. Because, you know, the CO2 doesn't vanish immediately once it is introduced. That takes considerable time. I am guessing you are pretty weak on the concept of accumulation. Dyson's point, which is correct, is that simplistic mathematical models cannot represent the effect of CO2 on the planet. If that is Dyson's point, and it isn't, then that would be wrong. The parameters are pretty simple, and the ones I detailed. The only thing that can be disputed is exactly how that extra energy is distributed. As Dyson has admitted before, his experience with the models was in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The models have changed a lot. If for no other reason, the available computer power is much greater. Not to mention, the models have been shown to be a lot more accurate than either you or Dyson claim. That is just indisputable.