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: E who wrote (49874)	8/8/1999 7:17:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I am glad you enjoyed the article....The American Association for the Advancement of Science is a non- partisan and highly reputable organization. Gubler is not "my spokesman", but an authority who holds the position of director of the division of vector-borne infectious diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Since he is not a climatologist, and is seeking to be conciliatory, his comments on the credibility of global warming are not nearly as interesting as his comments on his main area of expertise, which is infectious diseases. Since I am not a Libertarian, your sarcasm is lost on me, I have nothing against public health measures, have donated money to charities in that area, and support some governmental activity in that area....

To: E who wrote (49874)	8/8/1999 8:27:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 108807

I posted this on July 20th (#46198 on this thread). The articles (note the plural) I published on August 7th were merely to show that the controversy is real, and why it is legitimate to take the side that some of us do. On the last article, I would much prefer building up public health infrastructure to crippling industrial development, if anything needs to be done at all: "Michael, there is a slight warming trend this century. The question is if it is just ordinary variation, or something which will persist. The studies are inconclusive. Those who promote the idea of "global warming" say:"Why take a chance? Act now before it is too late." Those against note that to counter the hypothesized effect, the measures would be so drastic that global economic development, and thus the future prosperity of many poor people, would be seriously compromised. That is why it is in the political arena, because it is a debatable matter, not resolvable as yet by science. I am on your side, by the way..."

To: E who wrote (49874)	8/8/1999 9:57:00 AM
From: George S. Montgomery	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

E, again, you have removed a good number of exclamation points from their shouting. But, I do not believe that will change the game. The game, as I have mentioined, has to do with relative sizes. geo

To: E who wrote (49874)	8/8/1999 12:55:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

>the fact that as climate changes, man changes as well."< >But all agree that there could be a range of consequences for human health.< Imo the two are saying the same thing. The hidden ugly little truth is that the mechanism by which man adapts is by attrition of the less-than-perfectly strong. Man adapts. People don't.

To: E who wrote (49874)	8/8/1999 1:14:00 PM
From: James R. Barrett	Respond to of 108807

Yes E, you WILL die someday. You will probably die from cancer, heart disease, liver failure, stroke, or some other common disease. The good news is, YOU WILL NOT DIE FROM GLOBAL WARMING.