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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (134997)	9/8/2008 3:14:36 PM
From: Nicholas Thompson	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

oh f--k off; even if it is not true our switch to non fossil fuels will be the best thing we can accomplish in the next 20 to 30 years.

To: longnshort who wrote (134997)	9/8/2008 3:44:45 PM
From: Kevin Rose	1 Recommendation Respond to of 173976

You mean your opinion is that anthropodgenic global warming is a scam, no?

To: longnshort who wrote (134997)	9/8/2008 5:19:22 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Yes, in the pathologic "us vs them" confused mind state that is probably reality... in a more calm normal state we can see that science shows a multi 100 year warming trend as sure as there was a stock market rally from 1980 till 2000: en.wikipedia.org So the real issue is whether it is a normal cycle or human caused, and/or further, is there anything that can/should be done about it. There is no debate on the first issue, regardless of how many time Rush Limbaugh notes how cold it was on his way to pick up his contin...errr coffee. The issue of how relevant it all is of course remains to be seen. Conspiracy to outlaw SUV's? Naw, that's a silly mindset; most global warming wonks really believe it and are doing their best. Same with the "anti-global warming nutcases"... their doing their best too... just more toxic and stupid about it. They're against just because the other side is "for". My view? Global Warming is a red herring... the real issue is lowering emmission because of pollution. There are all sorts of good data on childhood and adult health problems as well as environmental damages linked to pollution... and it's mounting despite (in this country) many pollution problems getting better. Only an idiot living in any big city would not want to get to non-pollutive cares ASAP. Certainly I see why most of the US doesn't care (living in nice rural areas like where grew up), why should they? But to ridicule folks living in and around big cities for wanting strict pollution/health/etc standards is just ignorant really. That's why I find it interesting that the EPA doesn't want to allow "stricter" standards in certain areas... makes no sense. OF COURSE LA should want less pollution per auto than Laramie... if LA were to ban SUV's on the road with less than 5 people in them would anyone blame them? Sure.. nut cases like Hannity who doesn't live there would lead the charge!! LOL, what a nut. So much for State and local rights. DAK