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: Alighieri who wrote (322713)	1/24/2007 1:51:27 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583384

Look, if 1) Lomborg is right, then the world puts effort into preventing something that will not happen, or will not happen to a catastrophic degree...and most likely the world is better off, because alternative energy is central to the solution and that comes with many side benefits, etc... If you put massive effort and resources in to preventing something that will not happen, or will not happen to a catastrophic degree, you reduce the effort and resource that you can devote to dealing with serious problems that clearly are happening, the resources you can devote to other possible massive catastrophes, the resources available for personal consumption and/or the resources that you can invest to increase the total the resources you can have available in the future. What path do you chose if a hurricane is forecasted to hit your house with some disputed probability? "Some disputed possibility" isn't very meaningful. If the dispute is between 0.00001% and 0.0001% you have a very different situation than if the dispute is between 90% and 99%. Also if you leave your home for a different area in anticipation that a hurricane might hit, and it doesn't hit, you probably haven't consumed a vast amount of resources in the effort to avoid the hurricane.