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: Lazarus_Long who wrote (4920)	3/27/2002 6:38:26 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Don't you believe in natural fluctuations in global climate? Certainly, I understand such existed. This doesn't mean I'm willing to pretend or hope, Pollyanna-like, that such is all we have now. The current warming may be partially natural fluctuation. In this case, our current actions will make it far worse and more intense. Or it may be almost entirely our fault. Either way, we act to minimise or we suffer. The world IS getting warmer and our actions DO contribute heavily. Disagree? You think the ice age ended because of the campfires of humans? Nope. I don't want another such warming, though. Cavemen in an underpopulated world don't have so much to lose - as a species - as we do now [I realise this is a new and advanced point, but it's the case]. You don't think there are natiral sinks for CO2? I do. And I think that the huge rise in atmospheric CO2 over the last 200 years shows that they can't cope. Coupled, of course, with the devastation of forests (removing one sink) and the burning of fossil fuels (countering the effects of historic sinks). Or don't you believe those graphs, either, becasue you don't like the message?