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: longnshort who wrote (361629)	12/6/2007 1:57:50 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574054

longnshort, I have no doubt that each of us could dredge up extremists on either end of the spectrum, but I'm a statistics guy. I want to know what the CONSENSUS is. Here's a thought experiment for you. If you are about to get heart surgery, would you go with the outlying opinion as to what procedure should be performed or how it should be performed? Or would you go with the consensus opinion of the Medical community? Most of us would go with the consensus, because it has been thoroughly peer reviewed, and as such, would have benefited from massive critical scrutiny. Same thing goes for climate research and the impact of human activity such as fossil fuel burning. I base my opinions on the consensus of the scientific community, of which there is no longer any doubt. Only extremists (outliers) or special interests are pushing a different agenda. I wouldn't bet my planet's future and the future of my grandchildren on outliers.

To: longnshort who wrote (361629)	12/6/2007 2:02:59 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574054

climate.unsw.edu.au The 2007 IPCC report, compiled by several hundred climate scientists, has unequivocally concluded that our climate is warming rapidly, and that we are now at least 90% certain that this is mostly due to human activities. The amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere now far exceeds the natural range of the past 650,000 years, and it is rising very quickly due to human activity. If this trend is not halted soon, many millions of people will be at risk from extreme events such as heat waves, drought, floods and storms, our coasts and cities will be threatened by rising sea levels, and many ecosystems, plants and animal species will be in serious danger of extinction. The next round of focused negotiations for a new global climate treaty (within the 1992 UNFCCC process) needs to begin in December 2007 and be completed by 2009. The prime goal of this new regime must be to limit global warming to no more than 2º C above the pre-industrial temperature, a limit that has already been formally adopted by the European Union and a number of other countries. Based on current scientific understanding, this requires that global greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced by at least 50% below their 1990 levels by the year 2050. In the long run, greenhouse gas concentrations need to be stabilised at a level well below 450 ppm (parts per million; measured in CO2-equivalent concentration). In order to stay below 2 ºC, global emissions must peak and decline in the next 10 to 15 years, so there is no time to lose. As scientists, we urge the negotiators to reach an agreement that takes these targets as a minimum requirement for a fair and effective global climate agreement.