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: Lane3 who wrote (14241)	6/5/2002 10:08:16 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

This is silly, Karen. Let's stipulate the following: 1. H2O is a greenhouse gas. 2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 3. When you exhale, you pump both into the atmosphere. 4. Therefore human activity can effect atmospheric temperature. Of course. Perfectly obvious. The only important question is HOW MUCH? That is what the whole matter is about. Until the size of the final net effect is known, there really is nothing to talk about. And that is what the dispute is about. I'm treated like I just said that we should sign the Kyoto Treaty when I said nothing of the sort. But that and related questions are exactly what is under dispute. If there were not Kyoto Treaty or equivalent, there would be no political dispute. And trying to claim that the anti-Kyotoers (how's that for a word) are bunch a bunch of retarded, politically motivated troglodytes who should crawl back under their rock and let you wise liberals run the worls doesn't quite cut it either. For one thing, this is a scientific matter and should be settled on the basis of reason and evidence. For another, the pro-Kyotoers are hardly without dirty political motivations either. Think "anti-WTC", "anti-globalization", "anti-technology". And it's hardly true that going along with Kyoto is without cost. It's economic consequences could be enormous. And will be significant. And politics follows economics.

To: Lane3 who wrote (14241)	6/6/2002 1:47:20 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

You ended up agreeing that human activity affects climate. I don't know why you are so grudging about acknowledging it now. I'm not grudging in my acknowledgment that human activity effects climate. I'm grudging in my acknowledgment that it is beyond reasonable doubt that the effect is significant. To my knowledge its never been the current administrations position that human activity has no effect on climate. Its opinion was more along the lines that Kyoto was a bad idea. I believe it was also Bush's position that the claim that significant human caused global warming is happening and will continue to happen, and will eventually be very harmful has not been substantiated. People assume you mean more then the fact that there is some effect on climate from human activity because that's not really the issue. Most people would take it as established that human activity has some effect on climate. The people who deny global warming would simply say that the earth is not getting warmer, or if it is its a normal fluctuation of the type that occurs year to year or decade to decade throughout history. I wouldn't go as far as that, I just say that there is a large amount of uncertainty in all these climate claims and that people who try to bring up this uncertainty are often bashed as being unreasonable or partisan or in the pockets of the oil companies. Which is why I was so pleased with the Administration's report. Until Bush disavowed it, that is. I don't really see the connection. Even without the report I don't think Bush or administration officials have ever said "human activity does not effect climate". Tim