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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (17098)	4/26/2006 2:52:03 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541340

The kind of proof that you want to prove global warming does not make any sense. I'm not looking for proof. I well understand that it doesn't exist. I was merely objecting to the comparison of people who are skeptical about something that is unknown (global warming) with people who deny something that is known (Holocaust). It's illogical and hyperbolic.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (17098)	4/27/2006 7:07:14 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541340

The kind of proof that you want to prove global warming does not make any sense. It would be like if you were a Jew living in Berlin looking for proof that a Holocaust was actually taking place before you decide to get out of Berlin. By the time you get that level of proof, it would be too late. 1 - Even the strongest proponents of the idea that we face a relatively quick and disastrous bout of global warming in our near future are not arguing that days or weeks or months without change will put us in an inescapable situation that could otherwise have been remedied. The Jew in Berlin before the Holocaust might be able to escape one day, and not be able to escape (or perhaps be dead) the next. Global warming is no something that can change as quickly as government policy. 2 - As Lane 3 pointed out denying something that has already happened, and which left an enormous amount of evidence, is very different than being skeptical about a future scenario. No matter how solid our projections in to the future may seem they are never 100%, while the existence and broad outlines of the Holocaust pretty much are 100% certain. By the time you get the proof that you need, it would be too late. It may be but that still isn't enough to automatically justify any step to combat it before sufficiently solid evidence of the future extent and effects of global warming is determined. It may be that the extent and effects will be minor (or even counteracted by other changes). It may be that plans to combat it by reducing CO2 emissions will be disastrously expensive, and/or ineffective (and possibly unnecessary). Its one thing to take cheap simple measures on speculation its quite another to try to cut CO2 emissions by a significant faction. Tim