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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Carragher who wrote (458217)	9/13/2003 9:20:42 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

LOL "Some 14,000 years ago, a warming trend apparently raised the sea level by 70 feet in just a few hundred years. Today's computer models don't foresee a repeat of that, but they also can't explain why it happened then." That is the most compelling idea expressed. If in fact a 300 year warming event occurred and no-one has a clue as to why it happened, how idiotic that makes all the chicken little sky is falling bunch. None of the computer models have been demonstrated any ability to predict carbon emission global warming so far.

To: John Carragher who wrote (458217)	9/13/2003 2:09:32 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

"Some 14,000 years ago, a warming trend apparently raised the sea level by 70 feet in just a few hundred years. Today's computer models don't foresee a repeat of that, but they also can't explain why it happened then." Couldn't this all be part of our normal warming cycle and nothing to do with carbon emissions? Yes, it could be. T. Watson argues that it definitely is; however, having visited Watson's web site, I wouldn't bet the ranch on his conclusions. The truth is we don't know for sure if the current period of global warming is being prompted by carbon emissions from our factories and cars, or is a normal cycle of the weather. Many prominent and respected scientists think its the former, not the latter. Certainly, the signs are ominous whether its the warming in Alaska or the loss of land from the Pacific island states to rising water. But global warming should not be the issue that this whole argument hangs on.......what we do know is that carbon emissions help screw up our air, hurt our lungs and can cause disease in humans. There's no question about that....so what's the reason for the stalling action? Why is Bush's EPA relaxing the emission standards on old power plants? Why do we continue to burn oil as if it were a sweet elixir instead of the noxious substance that it is? We want to drill the ANWR to wean ourselves of our foreign oil dependency when we should be weaning ourselves off oil period. The Bush administration is trying to go backwards when we should be moving forward.