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: tejek who wrote (316274)	12/20/2006 7:32:08 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575791

My point was when it comes to GW that its very new territory and then anything is possible. To the extent that is true its an argument against spending trillions (or perhaps quadrillions if your considering the whole world, and the total cost over time, not just the cost in the next decade or two) on the types of changes made by some of the more extreme people making predictions of doom from global warming. You aren't talking about the types of cost that would be limited to what we are spending on Iraq. Imagine WWII fought with expensive modern weapons, and the higher pay rates we pay soldiers now, and you still would likely fall far short of the cost. Trimming CO2 production marginally is certainly doable, likely at reasonable costs, but if the extreme global warming predictions are accurate that would only give a short delay before disaster. Slashing CO2 production so that it only amounts to a small fraction of what we produce isn't affordable in the near term. You glibly say "when there is a chance it might cost them", without realizing that it would cost everyone and the costs would be staggering.