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 : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (3387)	5/26/2004 7:45:36 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

True....."consistently pessimistic" falls short of calling it a hoax. Nonetheless, they are trying to discredit the theory....or at least diminish its importance. Discrediting the theory falls short of calling it a hoax. Diminishing its importance falls short of discrediting it. I thought that's what I said above. Given this recent article, I find it hard to believe that the findings of global warming are "consistently pessimistic". The article is on solar dimming caused by air pollution. While dimming would offset the effects of global warming, I am not sure that's a great solution to the problem: 1 - The article says. "Although global warming has been widely accepted, global dimming remains controversial." 2 - The article barely talks about global warming and gives not indication that many global warming estimates have been consistently pessimistic. I repeat that if there is any validity to global dimming, and they do have measurements showing the earth receiving less sunlight, then its more likely that global warming is real and that the warnings have not been "consistently pessimistic". There is "pain" in any production in the form of costs: the purchase or renting of land, machines, and bldgs. and the hiring of labor......preventing pollution will just be one more cost to production. So lets just increase production costs for most of the economy by a huge percentage. I'm sure it will be harmless... No one has said a "huge %tage".......that's your interpretation. And why not spread the cost over billions........it will be less painful that way. There can be the selling of pollution rights and other ways to minimize the burden on poorer countries. That would at least be a more efficient way to reduce pollution emissions, or CO2 emissions. I agree. ted