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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (63529)	5/5/2008 4:37:33 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 542353

How do you ever end up at that conclusion? Not really a conclusion. Not enough evidence for a conclusion. Merely a suspicion. Two bases for it. One is that I have never, ever seen an advocate broach the question of cost effectiveness. Ever. The other is the frequency with which any minor challenge or naysaying is greeted with charges of blanket hostility towards any effort. It seems to me that, although other explanations are possible, the most likely one is that the parties have a GW prism. You hurt my head again. I'm sorry your head hurts. I do try to avoid that. I'm very careful about clipping the points to which I'm responding, for example, and almost always careful about not straying from the point or at least using parentheses when I do. I always explain myself when asked. And I'm pretty good at remembering to acknowledge made points. If there's anything else I could be doing to ease your pain, I will try to accommodate it. <g>

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (63529)	5/5/2008 6:51:20 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 542353

And if you think anyone out there is suggesting that " GW [is] the be all [to] end all", I think you would be wrong. How do you ever end up at that conclusion? Well, Steve and Karen, I have to say that Karen is not totally wrong about that. I have studied it for the past year or so (since the last IPCC report came out) as best as I can do it part time and more or less on my own (though not totally so), and have come to tentative conclusion that GW (more properly speaking "climate change") in fact is "the be all [to] end all" phenomenon, at least potentially so. I posted an article a few weeks ago that at least partially explains why I think that: Message 24521947 I agree that it sounds loony to claim it, and it took me awhile to accept the possibility that at least the beginnings of the really serious consequences could well occur in the lifetimes of a lot of people now alive, but--so it is. Climate is so fundamental to how we live that if there are radical changes in it, it really isn't all that surprising that there will be radical changes in how we live. A nice brief, beginners history of how scientists came to our current understanding of the phenomenon is here: aip.org A longer and more complicated--but for me, more satisfying--account is here: aip.org These essays are written by Spencer Weart, whose biography is: SPENCER R. WEART is Director of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics (AIP) in College Park, Maryland, USA. Originally trained as a physicist, he is now a noted historian specializing in the history of modern physics and geophysics. In case you think he is just webnut, his book, The Discovery of Global Warming, on which the above essays (and the others that are on his website) is published by Harvard University Press: hup.harvard.edu I know it goes against our necessary belief that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, just as it always has, to think that basic processes on which we depend will radically change in the not too distant future, and even more so that collective human actions could actually cause (or "force," to use the climatologists' jargon) this to happen, but ... so it appears to be. As for the question of whether it's too late to do anything about it--that is a subject of some controversy. It is fairly clear, though, that positive feedbacks being what they are, if it isn't too late now, it will probably be too late sometime within the next couple of decades. It doesn't mean that every species, or even every human, will die off, but it will mean a great many species will simply disappear, unable to adapt, and the human population problem will be solved for quite awhile. Human ingenuity being what it is, some humans will likely survive even under terrible conditions, but it may well become a "Mad Max" world. Our collective hubris will once again lead to disaster. The greater the hubris, the greater the disaster, and ours is so great that we don't even know that we have it anymore. Such are my cheery thoughts for the evening.