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: Ali Chen who wrote (329588)	3/20/2007 2:19:32 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574485

Ali, > Areas with explosive growth of population will not give a rat about your concerns. They'll just complain that Americans burn much more than their "fair share" of fossil fuels and demand that Americans cut back. And they might have a point, especially when Americans enjoy a much higher standard of living than anyone else. Case in point: Al Gore. ;-) Tenchusatsu

To: Ali Chen who wrote (329588)	3/20/2007 2:43:16 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574485

"However, these studies are in overwhelming agreement that CO2 variations consistently _lag_ the temperatures by 1200+-700 years. Therefore, it must be quite obvious that the above hypothesis about the root _cause_ of global warming is invalid." Invalid logical inference. Sure, in the case when some entity isn't pouring billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, you have a point. But the game is a bit different at the moment. Ok, since you are going down this road, I will ask you the same question I asked Taro. Are you claiming that CO2 doesn't absorb in the infrared? Or, conversely, are you claiming that the greenhouse effect doesn't work?

To: Ali Chen who wrote (329588)	3/20/2007 5:06:31 PM
From: Taro	Respond to of 1574485

Don't cave in, Ali. No reason to because you have the logic on your side. Not the in vitro pico case over a fraction of a life time but the grand cosmos data of the last 800,000 years on irrefutable display with the latest ice cores. Taro

To: Ali Chen who wrote (329588)	3/21/2007 2:04:07 PM
From: Alighieri	Respond to of 1574485

So, the solution to the problem lies elsewhere. Where? The statement seems to kick the can down the road at best... With 30% of the world's consumption, action on our side has high(er) pay back...not to mention the economic and socio-political effects of large scale conversions to renewable and greener forms of energy. Al

To: Ali Chen who wrote (329588)	3/22/2007 12:04:55 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574485

Funny.........I see a relationship between the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and the rising global temps.

To: Ali Chen who wrote (329588)	3/22/2007 2:12:34 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574485

"But even if its wrong, I see no reason why we shouldn't cut back on the burning of fossil fuel where its reasonable" I would agree that air pollution is a bad thing. However, the reason why we should not is that the others will not do this. Areas with explosive growth of population will not give a rat about your concerns. So, the solution to the problem lies elsewhere. I see. If your neighbor doesn't cut his grass, you shouldn't cut yours. The Sudan doesn't treat its population humanely. So should we do the same? What? Are we back to being 12 years old?