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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (252319)	12/26/2007 8:29:28 AM
From: KyrosL	Respond to of 281500

Hi WharfRat, looking for an honest neocon; my skepticism about the need to do much, if anything, about GW comes from logic rather than ideology -- i am no neocon and consider Bush one of the worst presidents we had. But on GW I agree with Nadine. I see the trend of rising sea levels here: en.wikipedia.org which is not disputed by anybody, and question the dire predictions about a catastrophic sea level rise a century from now. Sea level rise is the only bad net effect of GW that I can see. Out civilization can easily handle a less than a foot rise of sea levels per century. Other than sea level rise, GW's effects seem a wash, if not positive, due to the positive effect of CO2 on plant growth. For example, Siberia and large parts of Canada and Alaska, now largely barren tundras, may be transformed into vast breadbaskets. The data on sea level rise so far definitely does not support anything dire, and delaying drastic, painful action before they do won't make much difference in the final outcome.