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: TimF who wrote (317674)	12/27/2006 5:36:53 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575947

"Ever increasing CO2 levels isn't likely. There are some negative feed back loops. " Well, duh. Sooner or later we hit peak coal and oil. Then the rate of increase slows. "Counter measures can induce a cooling effect that might be greater then the warming effect, even if you do continue to increase CO2, unless you believe in very strong positive feedback loops from CO2 emissions," Benford's lens. There are some strong positive feedback mechanisms, they've been mentioned repeatedly. Melting of tundra, drying of bogs, chlathrates becoming unstable. Any one of which can deposit large amounts of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere, and all are temperature and/or weather dependent. "Perhaps. It also isn't something I said." You have repeatedly said that the cost was too high. Since the high costs are only associated with massively decreasing CO2 emissions and not just slowing the rate of increase, you have de facto adopted that as your argument.