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: Joe NYC who wrote (122613)	8/21/2000 3:51:51 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571336

OT I am not presumptuous to claim to know what's best for the Earth, but to be cautious in my opinion is to let the nature do it's own thing. Joe, Nature does know best and it would be great to let it "do its own thing". However nature has to contend with the significant intrusion of human civilization. It does not appear that this planet and its ecology has had to cope previously with a civilization as large and significant and as intrusive as man's. Therefore we do not know what the impact is....there is not enough long term data; so we must rely on relatively current data...the last 100 years. Its this current data which indicates that human civilization is having an impact on the ecological system. However we can not be sure how serious that impact is. Your argument sounds very reasonable and implies that there is a inappropriate hsyteria to the fears of global warming....and maybe you are right. Maybe the loss of certain species and plant fila is not that important, that ozone holes can be problematical but resolvable etc. However I look at it from the prospective that this is the only home we have. Why take the chance and do nothing, or worse, do a lot of analysis and study. Why not curb our excesses so that we don't have repeats of the Willamette River or Cuyahoga, or the Amazon rain forests. Its seems to make very practical and smart sense to me. ted

To: Joe NYC who wrote (122613)	8/21/2000 4:23:45 PM
From: 5dave22	Respond to of 1571336

Joe <there would have been some stimulation over the million of years that would trigger the the event that would destroy all life on the Earth.> Not all. We're not THAT powerful. Don't forget the sulfur based life ecosystems living at the mouths of deep-water volcanoes. The base of their food chain is in no way related to photosynthesis. Unless we find a way to stop tektonics, they'll carry on just fine with out us. Dave

To: Joe NYC who wrote (122613)	8/21/2000 7:23:12 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571336

Jozef and Ali, Thanks for your welcome to the thread. I have been lurking here for a while and I also post on Raging Bull. Thought I would come over here and stir up some trouble. Both the climate and ecosystems are chaotic systems with a large degree of dynamic stability. It is hard to push them off balance, but human release of CO2 is one way to shift both. Since the climate has a large degree of variability, there was the "Little Ice Age" that caused the abandonment of the Norse Greenland colony and almost caused the failure of the one at Iceland, it is very hard to separate out normal variation from human caused variation. One thing we do know, for the past hundred or so years the climate has been milder than is was in the period that immediately preceeded it. It does look as if we are moving away from that mild period and things are getting rougher. Whether or not it is due to human interaction is something that cannot be proved or disproved with the knowledge we have now. Personally I think people should try to moderate CO2 and CFCs as much as possible, especially in the wealthier countries. I am ambivalent about government control of this, in principle it sounds good, but it practice it works poorly, the backlash often gets people like George W. put in office...