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: KLP who wrote (96567)	1/24/2005 2:09:59 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793669

Perhaps the scientists could explain how global warming happened 250 million years ago, and occurred over a period of 600,000 YEARS....and yet, man wasn't involved then. Nor was the world manufacturing anything.... What caused global warming then? Was it too many trees? Conditions on the earth have been very different at different times, and the causes are varied. Why would one use this as an argument that current human activity must not be having an effect? In fact one of the reasons a human source is fingered this time is that the onset is relatively rapid. There are of course longer time period changes even in recent history from the last ice ages. While not causes by humans, these changes certainly benefited humans, especially those living in northern regions like I do. IMO, the best way to deal with the politics of global warming is simply to track end user actions. As an individual, my net greenhouse emissions should be tracked in an account, (including passing it to my heirs). The distant future might then decide to shift payments from myself or my heirs to compensate for my actions. Please note that many economists (and some scientists) think global warming is fine, or at least nothing to be alarmed about. Ok, just put ones economic future where ones mouth is. If the future works out to favor the results of global warming, funds would flow from the beneficiaries to those who helped bring it about. The compute power to implement such a plan is not a great burden, so I don't see that as a valid objection. The only real objection is that many people would not want their actions to have any personal liability of this nature.