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: combjelly who wrote (310881)	11/16/2006 2:41:07 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577122

CJ, > I am not sure what you mean by this. Have there been warmer and cooler periods? Yes. Does that mean it constantly shifts? No. What you described is what I call a continually-shifting equilibrium. I think you've exaggerated the examples, but either way, the environment is not something that is hanging in the balance. Instead, it's a system whose equilibrium point shifts one way or the other in response to pressures and stimuli. > If it doesn't solve the problem in toto, it isn't worth doing at all? Let me put it this way. Some people think that the threat of terrorism is highly exaggerated, that you're more likely to get killed in a car crash or by the influenza virus. Yet we spend hundreds of billions of dollars fighting a war on terrorism and beefing up homeland security. Would you consider that a waste? That's the way I think about global warming. I don't deny its existence, but I don't think the effects are going to be all that bad, certainly not nearly enough to justify huge shifts in lifestyle and the associated headaches. Or to put it another way, what would be cheaper? Trying to prevent the effects of global warming, or adapting to said effects? We have to adapt to the changing weather and environment all the time (e.g. Katrina). Nothing new there, even when you take global warming into account. Tenchusatsu

To: combjelly who wrote (310881)	11/16/2006 6:51:42 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577122

"to use them to go to class and back seems a little nuts." If they seem nuts in College Station, imagine how nuts they seem in S. Cal. From 7:30 am to 10:00 and from 4:30 to 7:30 pm, you can commute in the 20 mile long, 4 lanes wide, 5 mph traffic jam that seems to consist of at least 60% one passenger supersized SUV's. I drove my motorcycle between them every day. This is duplicated daily in every major metropolitan area in the country.

To: combjelly who wrote (310881)	11/17/2006 4:50:32 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577122

I am not sure what you mean by this. Have there been warmer and cooler periods? Yes. Does that mean it constantly shifts? No. There are valid reasons why things have been warmer or cooler. For example, there is ample evidence that we would be deeper into a glaciation if it wasn't for the CO2 we have been pouring into the atmosphere. Unless you happen to believe that the Northern hemisphere started to warm a few decades after the Industrial Revolution started to increase the CO2 concentration due to some massive coincidence. Just like the massive coincidence of the cooling after a significant number of people were killed off by the plagues and the corresponding decrease in the clearing of trees and burning of wood and coal resulted in a drop in the CO2 of the atmosphere. Odd how these things happen... That's what GW antagonists seem to miss......if it weren't for the introduction of large quantities of CO2, we would be deep into a cooling period where the glaciers are expanding, not contracting. And then when you point out to them that the earth may end up sharing the fate of Venus if nothing is done they simply laugh.