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: Lane3 who wrote (18097)	5/9/2006 2:58:00 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543106

Why not simply go with a reasonable range of outcomes based on the best scientific thinking which can be discerned, rather than lose future credibility? What's wrong with being honest about an issue? Saying we don't really know what the effects of global warming may ultimately be, that we cannot yet safely say how much of the warming is due to human activity, but our best guess is that we ultimately anticipate a range of results from "x" to "y" within an "a" to "b" time frame, then calculating costs and benefits to remedy, prevent, mitigate, whatever, based upon what is the best scientific evidence available, seems the most reasonable way to go to me. Then, if we're really smart, after spending a few millions to figure out the obvious, we'll come to the conclusion that there is perhaps nothing we can do in the short run and damned little in the long run other than perhaps change from coal to nuclear for power generation--good luck with the Greenies on that--and do whatever we can to get hydrogen as an alternative to fossil fuels for cars and other vehicles. We're going to end up agreeing with a old farmer's adage--"cain't do much about the weather, can we?"

To: Lane3 who wrote (18097)	5/9/2006 3:21:08 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543106

You realize I didn't say we should believe the folks who say Fl will be gone in 20 years, I merely said I don't believe (as of yet) the folk who say it will take centuries. I'm getting the distinct impression that not only have you ignored what I actually said, you know seem to believe I would be interested in promoting hysteria. I only said I prefer it to complacency. Given the history of scientific advances though, a little hysteria seems to promote activity, where complacency is a problem. Remember Sputnik? Could anything else have so energized the US space program? If I can have action without hysteria I'd prefer that. But I'm not sure that is an option- since people (en masse) seem reactive and hysterical by nature.