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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (226996)	11/5/2007 5:43:21 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 793877

Still, I like the new focus on climate change to the extent it forces all sorts of private sector players to examine their chains, pushing everyone up and downstream to focus more on efficiencies. If CO2 gets me in the door, then great. Just don't pretend it's the answer on everything, because—quite frankly—temperature is not the great arbiter of success or failure in our global environment, and reducing all discussion to that one parameter is just plain goofy, as Lomborg points out. Let me get this straight. Barnett admits taht the climate change mantra is "goofy", and cutting CO2 will make no appreciable difference, but he likes it anyway because going all hysterical over a variable that doesn't matter much at all will lead to greater efficiences as a side-effect. Have I got that right? Just as a thought, if efficiency is your concern, shouldn't we be going all hysterical over some variable that DOES matter? Bizarre. Just bizarre.