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 : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (12877)	5/23/2007 9:45:45 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 36917

Since humans also live in the environment, they take notice when it effects them, even if your point is that humans would not change to save anything else. You might note that people have actually done quite a bit to cleanup various problems we have caused, such as air and water pollution. When the river flowing past Detriot actually caught on fire, things change. I believe any impact from CO2 would develop very slowly. Thankfully, I think the impact will be nil or close to it. Turns out CO2 is a pretty minor greenhouse gas - if you double it, its still pretty minor. Water vapor is much more significant. You could read up on why the two are different. No magic is involved. I've done plenty of reading over the years - as noted I was aware of the issue decades before it became publicly known. And I recall from that reading that CO2 in the atmosphere has varied widely in the past - in response to climate changes, not as a cause of them. Read up on sunspots. That is an excellent example of denier thought processs. Scientists are interested in the sunspot issue, but no definitive results have emerged. Studies go one way and the other on that. The actual measured energy difference is very small. So there are alternate theories about cosmic rays effects, etc. But nothing significant has been shown yet. Meanwhile much more is understood about the CO2 effect and their magnitude. Yet you choose to ignore the one for which we have good data, and cling to a hopeful alternative which looks much more dubious. Why the hell to people do that? Enough is known to make some general judgments imo based on historic correlations. You're wrong about much being known about the CO2 effect. Presumed is better than known. Why do people cling to simple-minded ideas that the only thing that matters to the climate is human activity? Climate is incredibly complex.