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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (113261)	10/12/2000 8:06:12 PM
From: EricRR	Respond to of 186894

Scumbria: Focussing on CO2 in the greenhouse debate is about as useful as branding the internal combustion engine the greatest threat to humanity. (tm Gore- "Earth in the Balance") Here is a less expensive way to reduce man made radiation forcing: giss.nasa.gov Personally I think many (but not all) greenhouse publicists are spewing hot air. :P I've yet to see a good sea level impact analysis (ie one that doesn't imply that floating ice is a concern. Also why should the coef of thermal expansion of sand/water mixtures be estimated as so much less than sea water?) The business about mosquito spread is especially lame. How much does it cost to develop a new pesticide anyway? There is only one thing that scares me- possible instability in the deep sea methane hydrate ice deposits. Do you know anything about them?