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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (135022)	5/30/2004 11:41:06 PM
From: Sig	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Thanks for the cheerful words about Global warming. We should have time to adapt unless there is a sudden shift of the icecaps, or a reversal of the electric poles. In exchange I will say if worst comes to worst, that some gas cars can run on 100 % diesel. During gas rationing in the 1970's I added diesel- first 10%, then 20%, then 50%,then finally 100% to the tank of a 1964 Chev 6 cyl van. It wont start on 100%, but it will run smoothly at 55 to 60 mph on a flat road. Slow down for a town or stop sign and it smokes bad. So I added a 30 gallon diesel ( No.1 home heating oil) tank. Switch to gas for starting, towns, and hills that can cause pre-ignition, use diesel on the flat. This is just as a last resort, when your car warranty has expired and you are allowed only 5 gal gas/wk on rationing and have to take your wife to the hospital or have run out of beer. With modern engines you would have to experiment to see what mixture ratio ( if any- hehehe) the engine could handle. Who cares what the EPA thinks. Sig

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (135022)	5/30/2004 11:49:32 PM
From: dumbmoney	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

It may sound strange, but I see parallels between the global warming debate and the "preventive" war debate. In both cases the activist position is based on the notion of predicting future dangers and taking immediate costly measures to prevent them. Sometimes the argument is that the danger is so certain, it would be foolish not to act. Others argue that the very unpredictability of the situation is a reason to act. The safe course of action, they say, is to act; doing nothing would be an unnecessary risk. The skeptic says, no, our ability to predict the distant future isn't that good; and moreover, the actions that governments take are more a product of political pressures than sweet reason. Also, the skeptic says that safety is not an option; acting and not acting both carry risks.