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: Mary Cluney who wrote (100756)	2/16/2005 1:10:47 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793707

I can't give you the mathematics of how much burning petroleum based fuels contribute to smog and or global warming - but I see a strong relationship - if not one and the same thing. The mathematics don't matter. We need to be focused on the nature of relationships. We've already established that temperature accelerates smog formation. Now you assert a causal relationship between burning fossil fuels and both smog and global warming. Fine. Then that makes the relationship between smog and global warming what? It is that each is affected by burning fossil fuels. That the two may be affected by the same thing does not make smog and global warming "one and the same thing." Their relationship is that they share a common cause. Avalanches and headaches can both be caused by loud noises. That doesn't make an avalanche and a headache "one and the same thing." Yes, all these things are related in that they are all part of the pollution problem--they are all ingredients in pollution soup. If you differentiate, though, and look at actual relationships, you'll find that smog reduction is not dependent on the notion of global warming. If you are concerned about smog, then focus on smog because global warming is a red herring.