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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (9210)	9/24/2003 1:35:27 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 793758

Actually, I wasn't, at least for the moment, talking about the global warming issue but rather the acid rain issue. On the global warming issues, several things seem clear to me. 1. There is more than enough science to show that greenhouse gasses have enough to do with global warming to be concerned about it. Most the "science" that argues otherwise can be tracked back to industry sources. 2. But let's assume, at least for matters of this discussion, that it's not absolutely perfectly conclusive. It would then still make very, very good sense to lower such emissions either because they do contribute to some large but unknown extent or because the argument they contribute is quite strong even if not conclusive. 3. Almost all the politically organized opposition to such can be traced to industry sources for very good reasons. 4. There is a policy in here somewhere that recognizes the costs to industry and the benefits to the larger society. That was the Clinton position. It's clearly not the Bush position.