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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (150371)	8/26/2002 6:16:25 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584213

Reduced sun may well have lead to the cooling of the earth but it would not have been the most important factor if dinosaurs were cold blooded as many believe. Reduced sunlight due to particles in the atmosphere from an asteroid or comet impact would have not only cooled the planet it would have also had a big impact on plant life and when the plants die the things that eat them start dying. That's true but cold blooded animals can't take a lot of n temperature changes especially lower temps. Therefore, long before the plants were effected, the dinosaurs would be dead. A good example of the fact that the environment including temperature naturally goes through changes and that the warmer then normal temperatures are usually more beneficial for life in general and for humans then the colder periods. Yes, within certain ranges........however, global warming easily will exceed those ranges. Aside from the physical effects such as waters rising to swamp seaports or island nations etc., humans have difficulty functioning well in temps. above a certain level....... probably around 85 degrees. You talk about things going wrong environmentally and nothing happening. I don't think it works that way..........that a species disappears and suddenly the ecosystem falls apart. I think its like most living things or like our immune systems. Each time the ecosystem experiences a setback, it hurts the overall system only slightly and the ecosystem goes on but lessened or weakened. Over time, I think the effects become cumulative and then a threshold may be reached where the degradation suddenly picks up speed and disaster results. The changes over time have been greater then anything we have done to the planet as a whole. The sun's brightness changes, enormous volcanos release more of many pollutants then we probably have in our entire existence, yet life adjusts and thrives, if it didn't work like that it would have ended thousands of different times throughout the history of the earth. Yes, but, in the world's adjustment and adaption, man may lose out and go extinct. Worse.......man may not go extinct but current cultures like the US and the other developed nations may begin a long decline due to droughts, famine and economic upheaval brought on by the rising temps. Mankind can and does mess up specific areas but it would be difficult for us to cause the type of world wide disaster we fear even if we where trying to do it. Im sorry but we breed like bunny rabbits........we cover the planet from one end to the other and you don't think we are having a major impact? The era where we spew pollutants into the air 24/7 is relatively new........the last 100 years or so. It does not look like the planet is coping well with that input. There are problems with the ozone layer, dramatic melting of snow pack and glaciers, rising ocean waters etc. Who knows what the impact will be after another 100 years of increasing pollutants. Again, no one knows for certain but my philosophy is why fukk around and tempt the fates. No one knows that we aren't going to be invaded by aliens that look like glowing pink rabbits but its better to deal with realistic scenarios and logical trade offs. For example to stop the growth of CO2 emissions would costs trillions and probably condemn billions of people to be stuck in poverty. And yes it may prevent a potentially harmful global warming, but it may be unnecessary (if the climate doesn't warm to fast the warming could be beneficial, other factors may be cooling the planet, some of the evidence for human caused global warming is unclear or contradictory, other alternatives to reducing CO2 could deal with global warming for less money if it does become an issue, and in general we don't have enough understanding of the potential problem to justify putting the wealth of whole nations in to the attempt to deal with it). The data is unclear only to skeptics who don't want to be convinced that there is a problem. I really don't want to get into this argument with you again because it serves no purpose. But the idea of doing something positive like improving the air would somehow lock people in poverty is ludicrous. That same argument was used when people were trying to pay countries like Costa Rico not to log their rainforests. Costa Rico took the money and helped incubate a tech industry while turning the rain forests into a tourist attraction that brings in tons of foreign currency into the country. I have yet to see where doing something positive for people turns into a negative. In fact, its the poor of the planet who in part, are behind the push at the S. Africa Environ. Summit. Most equipment works better when it has ongoing maintenance and is not abused.......why should the earth's ecosystem be any different. The world really isn't once ecosystem, its thousands or millions of systems. Most scientists believe its lots of subsets making up one system. We designed and built the technological equipment and know how to maintain it. Also it can't maintain itself. Living things maintain and adjust themselves, and we don't understand ecosystems the way we understand a car or a factory. Our adjustments and maintenance may not be needed, it may even be counter productive. But there are places and times where we can provide environmental help, and sometimes we should take advantage of those opportunities, but that doesn't mean there is going to be a world wide disaster if we don't. Whatever! You don't know that.......the ice age of the Pleistocene Epoch would have severely diminished human populations and the ave. temp. drop was only 9 degrees. 1 - Nine degrees is a lot more then most global warming scenarios. My point is that it doesn't take much to dramatically alter conditions on the planet. 2 - The cooling would probably be worse then a bit of warming. What......you think you will jack up the AC if it gets a little hot outside? If so, think again. 3 - A severe ice age would not wipe out mankind. We've lived through the ice ages of that epoch (it was a whole bunch of ice ages separated by warmer periods not one ice age see geobop.com and now there are more of us, spread out over a larger part of the earth's surface and with technology to help us deal with such problems. Its amazing.........you really don't think the impact would be that great. The markets jump at the slightest slip and you don't think a dramatic change in the climate would have much effect. I think you are very wrong. It would be a catastrophe. And its countries like the US that will feel it worse. Man is so sure he has all the answers and can do anything but the truth is that the ecosystem on this planet far outstrips Man's capabilities in terms of complexity, ingenuity and functioning ability. If we are so uncertain about the ecosystem and how to deal with it that's even more reason not to take drastic measures. Right.........just keep polluting. And we wonder why the world doesn't like us much. ted