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 : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (1773)	3/8/2002 1:13:44 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

But you laugh at the idea that the planet needs forests. I do? I can think of numerous replies to that; however, I believe it best to pass. And we won't be around, but humans will, if the shit hits the fan again. Good chance we will if it's ten years from now. You may have missed my main point: There are costs on both sides of this question. Or as my creator, Robert Heinlein put it, "There's no such thing as a free lunch." I don't and neither do you or Michael M. Ah, there is hope. True. Meteorology is an unusually difficult science. Analytical solutions are largely impossible because of the extreme complexity of the equations. Even approximations are tough and often impossible. Noticed that, even with the meteorological satellites, your weather predictions are often wrong? That's a symptom. Scientists are actually (and amazingly) doing a better job of turning biology into an accurate science than they are meteorology. And again: Are you willing to take the consequences that could come from such guesswork?