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: TimF who wrote (20519)	2/19/2008 3:43:02 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

Fair enough. You should however factor the significant integral terms in climate science into your position. If you pilot the Exxon Vladez, you should know what it takes to turn the beast. It does not drive like your SUV. Same is true of the global climate. The distance (or time) you need to think ahead changes rather significantly. That problem was articulated way back in the earlier days of AGW, when it was noted that we might not have conclusive verification of AGW before we ran out of time to alter things. I'm quite open to this being unknown, but it is certainly an important issue in AGW. One has the same problem driving in heavy fog. It's not that you can't do it, but you can't do it safely at speed, because you can't detect issues far enough ahead to react to them. In fog, you can at least slow down to alter the dynamics, but with climate change, we can't alter the time, so all we can do is try to push our detection abilities further out. That is all the climate science is trying to do. This is good, not bad.