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 (347943)	8/22/2007 11:43:08 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574296

"Nonsense. $20bil is a rounding error in the world economy. " So? Your point? "Anything that has world wide economic effects (and reducing CO2 emissions or even restricting future growth of such emissions would) could cause a lot more damage than that without us even being able to notice and measure the effect. " Your assumptions are flawed. " In practice I imagine that it would cost more than that. " Well, Benford has a lot of experience with NASA at the planning end. I suspect he knows a whole lot more about the costs than you do. "More importantly the fact that we could do that as a response to global warming doesn't mean we will, or that if we do it will be the only response." That is true. With people like you who take as a thesis it is too expensive to even think about addressing it, without any supporting evidence, we are unlikely to do it. "f it was a simple "spend $20bil on a giant lens and you can 'cure' global warming", that would be an argument against making a major effort to reduce CO2 emissions." No it wouldn't. Such a solution is only stopgap to buy time. Ever increasing CO2 emissions will change the chemistry in the oceans. If you know anything about it, you'd know that is a Bad Idea. Most oceanic organisms cannot live outside of a narrow range of temperature and chemical composition of the water. Given that the majority of the oxygen in the atmosphere is produced in the oceans, you might see where risking the extinction of much of the phytoplankton is pretty stupid. But, since you are going to argue that it would be too expensive to do anything about it, maybe not.