SI
SI
discoversearch

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: RetiredNow who wrote (312961)11/28/2006 8:18:02 PM
From: longnshort  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1572472
 
lololol, you chicken littles are to much



To: RetiredNow who wrote (312961)11/28/2006 8:25:24 PM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1572472
 
re: No, I'm not saying we have to worry about a couple of degrees or even 10 or 20 degrees average increase.

Hate to say it, but 10 degrees and we're toast. We may be able to adapt but our food source can't. Oceans would be acidic and mostly stripped of life. Add the massive dislocations and wars for declining resources...

The good news is energy consumption would grind to a near halt as most of the human race perished. I guess that's the "natural cycle" these guys are talking about.



To: RetiredNow who wrote (312961)11/28/2006 8:49:14 PM
From: Tenchusatsu  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1572472
 
Mindmeld, you started to lose it when you brought up the "theory of compound interest," as if CO2 emissions itself causes more CO2 emissions.

Then your imagination went wild with the 200 degree scenario.

I think your view is a perfect illustration of how the global warming fanaticism tossed reason right out the window.

Tenchusatsu


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News