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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (237021)	6/13/2005 2:25:44 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573076

Man's not big enough to cause global warming, heck volcanoes put out more pollution and the earth cleans it up in no time

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (237021)	6/13/2005 3:34:53 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1573076

"And yet, it would be more expensive by orders of magnitude to try and stop changes in the environment. " What do you base this on? If Greenland and Antartica were to melt, much of the heaviest inhabited portions of the globe becomes sea floor property. What is their value? What is the cost of breeding new crops that are appropriate for the day length and seasons of the new climate? Few, if any existing crops will be suitable. Many fruits require a certain number of chill hours to produce, what happens with them? Hotter climates in North America tend to have little or no rain from late June through August, if that is extended up through Canada, that will increase pressure on water supplies and might make farming impossible in the center of the country. And that doesn't even begin to address what to do if the clathrates become unstable. That could cause the globe to heat up to the point where life becomes very precarious for most of humanity on a time scale measured in years at most.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (237021)	6/14/2005 9:50:49 AM
From: TigerPaw	Respond to of 1573076

it would be more expensive by orders of magnitude to try and stop changes in the environment. Unlikely, there are going to be necessary changes in energy use as oil runs out anyway. It's just a matter of guiding those changes so that it doesn't involve trading one greenhouse gas for another. Global Warming is real, and is going to continue even if we stopped all greenhouse emissions today. That means that there will be infrastructure accomodation, there will have to be. What we can do now is avoid making matters even worse, to the point that the infrastructure can no longer be retrofitted, but would instead have to be scrapped. TP