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 (14147)	6/4/2002 9:29:37 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

Acknowledging what? Contradictory and inconclusive findings? Because the last time I looked, that was all there was. How many times do I have to state it? Acknowledging that human activity is contributing to global climate change. In any controversy, there are lots of opinions. Some of them are just stupid or off the wall. Sensible people throw those out and focus on those areas within the legitimate range of opinion, where there is opportunity to more forward. Anyone who denies the basic statement I made is too weird to be included in the debate. Surely you are not among them?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (14147)	6/5/2002 9:30:56 AM
From: average joe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

Thanks for posting that link which proves beyond a shadow of doubt we have averted the next ice age. "Since about 1940 the global climate did in fact appear to be cooling. Then a funny thing happened-- sometime in the late 1970's temperature declines slowed to a halt and ground-based recording stations during the 1980's and 1990's began reading small but steady increases in near-surface temperatures. Fears of "global cooling" then changed suddenly to "global warming,"" If we had listened to the "Gore Gals" and signed Kyoto we would have blundered into another ice age. Australia rejected it to btw: asia.cnn.com

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (14147)	6/5/2002 9:41:32 PM
From: average joe	Respond to of 21057

Ayn Rand on Global Warming EARTH DAY is celebrated every year as the symbol of environmentalism. What is environmentalism? Contrary to much popular belief, environmentalism is not a benevolent movement seeking to improve man’s life by cleaning up the air and water. As a doctrine — an “ism” — it is fundamentally an attack on the ideals of Western civilization. Opposed to science, technology, and economic development, environmentalism holds that the non-human has value but the human does not. Environmentalism has become the gravest threat to human survival. Under the guise of advocating clear air and nice treatment to pets, environmentalism aims to retard and then dismantle our industrial/technological society. Environmentalism regards all human productivity and progress as an intrusion on the sanctity of nature and on the “rights” of animals. Fundamentally opposed to reason and science, environmentalism uses false scientific claims to frighten the unwary. With a doomsday mentality reminiscent of Dark Age fanatics, environmentalists place every possible legal (and illegal) roadblock in the way of new inventions and economic development, from the local to the international level. If environmentalism is successful in its assault on Western values, your life on earth will become increasingly difficult, as your wealth and freedom slowly decrease. had environmentalism taken hold in the 19th century, you would not have the electricity or computers on which to read these words. This site is part of the Ayn Rand Institute’s mission to challenge the altruist-collectivist ideas underlying much public policy and eroding our rights and liberties. Please visit the ARI Web site at aynrand.org to learn more about our programs directed at high schools, universities and the general public. environmentalism.aynrand.org