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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (49605)	8/7/1999 10:59:00 AM
From: Father Terrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

This is incorrect. In fact, it is dead wrong! We are essentially arguing between the future of mankind as a whole, and the right of huge companies and the superrich to continue to make their money at the expense of the environment, when in fact an environmental clean-up could also be quite profitable. It seems obscene to ruin the earth for profits, and yet that is exactly what is happening.

To: Grainne who wrote (49605)	8/7/1999 12:12:00 PM
From: Michael M	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Hi Christine! Let's say we have a group of people who sincerely but wrongly believe that global warming is no problemo. You then, have "scientifically" pointed out to them a 90-95 percent likelihood that they are wrong. Finally, the case is nailed shut when a passionately concerned actor says so during his Oscar acceptance speech (while wearing the obligatory little blue and green ribbon on his tux). Next, we notice the gasoline beginning to boil (bubble, bubble, bubble). It is unclear whether you would have the miscreants thrown wholly into the soup or simply forced to immerse some body part for a brief period. While you follow that prescription with a, "Seriously, though... ," there's no smiley or <ggg> in sight. I'm thinking; you won't actually poach the stupid bastards but, you ARE thinking "... would serve 'em right!" As we wait for the final 5 or 10 percent of the global warming proof to come in before taking extreme measures, why don't we do this -- why don't we agree that 100 percent of the verifiable evidence shows that crack addicts, habitual criminals, welfare moms who continue to have baby after baby and the hardcore assholes who make it IMPOSSIBLE for fellow 'students' to learn anything in school are expensive environmental blights? Maybe there's a use for that boiling gasoline after all. What do you think, Thread Mother?

To: Grainne who wrote (49605)	8/8/1999 2:26:00 AM
From: Krowbar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Christine, you are correct in asserting that if we wait for 100% proof that global warming is a problem, and that it is caused by humans, it may be too late. At least it would be much harder to fix, if it can be fixed. I strongly believe that we must start now to curtail the burning of fossil fuels and limit the increase in population. I also believe that nuclear power is one of the answers, along with the change to electric automobiles and very efficient housing with rooftop solar panels making being hooked to the electric grid unnecessary. Watch the Discovery Channel Sunday night on the life on the Bikini Atoll. Del