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: tejek who wrote (150375)	8/26/2002 7:10:24 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584230

Yes, within certain ranges........however, global warming easily will exceed those ranges. That is a very unsupported speculation. above a certain level....... probably around 85 degrees. Even the people pushing global warming the hardest don't claim that the average temperature would get that high. If you mean rather the specific temperature at one point at one time much of the world exceedes that occational, some places by a lot, but humans still function just fine. Also this is nothing new. Throughout history except during the ice ages or in the artic 85 is not a rare temperature. Yes, but, in the world's adjustment and adaption, man may lose out and go extinct. Very unlikely. 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. That's worse?!? That idea is more likely but there isn't enough evidence for it yet to creat such a cost that would cause the economy to decline anyway. Perhaps we can cut greenhouse gases and continue our growth but we would have to go for nuclear power in a big way to do that. 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. There is just about nothing that has not happened worse before we started to produce significant amounts of CO2 or pollution. Who knows what the impact will be after another 100 years of increasing pollutants As countries advance many forms of pollution decrease. And a number of forms of pollution. at times existed at levels higher then what we are likely to produce even in a hundred years. The data is unclear only to skeptics who don't want to be convinced that there is a problem. That's simply not true. Not only is the data unclear but we don't really have enough data yet for their even to have been a large chance of having clear data. The actual atmosphere is trillions of times more complex then any computer simulation. Most of the data only goes back a century or two and the earlier data is less reliable then current data. If we had computers that where a trillion times faster then they are today and if we had 50,000+ years of solid climate data, with maybe at least 10k years of data about how the environment reacted to increases of CO2 levels then we could come to a good conclusion. With our current data we get either very tentative conclusions that say very little, or speculative leaps based on insufficient information. 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. We already have improved the air and while it was expensive it wasn't disastrous. I was talking not about reducing noxious chemical pollutants but rather greatly reducing CO2 emissions, esp. without increasing nuclear power. 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. Nine degrees average global change is "much". 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. Personally yes I would jack up the AC a bit, but that isn't what I was talking about. In times with warmer then normal tempetures the planet has supported more life then in normal times, and a lot more then when the teperature was colder then normal. 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. You start out talking about (and I reply about ) the extiction of our species and now you are talking about a bear market. Get some sense of perspective. I'm not saying there could not be any negative consequences. I said "A severe ice age would not wipe out mankind." Right.........just keep polluting. And we wonder why the world doesn't like us much The rest of the world is increasing its polution while we are lowering ours. The poorer countries of the world would face a greater negative impact of attempts to control either polution or CO2. Also I didn't say don't do anything, I just said don't jump in to drastic measures. Tim