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 : John McCain for President -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim S who wrote (6254)	11/26/2008 3:34:22 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6579

You make a good point. This is something I've been struggling with on what I read about global warming. Here's where my internal debate focuses. There is a case to be made that the burning of fossil fuels can still be considered to be an event that the earth can handle within it's natural biospherical tolerances, meaning that the earth can recover from the warming currently taking place. Afterall, the fossil fuels we are burning are taken from the earth itself, so ostensibly they became buried or part of the earth in a previous era through some natural processes. So releasing them, would simply be perpetuating a long cycle of capture and release of these fuels and gases, right? So if that is the case, how harmful can it be? My core belief is that by burning fossil fuels, I doubt we're going to push the earth beyond its ability to heal itself over the long term. So that is my best argument for not worrying too much about global warming. However, that is until I start thinking about the consequences of global warming, which are none too pleasant for the human race. We certainly can accelerate the release of greenhouse gases at a faster rate than natural processes. Our industrial era has done that, in fact. So the question that I think is most relevant is whether we will reach a level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at which it becomes uninhabitable for humans or that it kills off most of our food supply? To answer this question, all we need to start thinking about is whether or not the earth has always been habitable. The answer is no, it has not. There were periods where greenhouse gases were so prevalent that the air wasn't breathable by us and conditions on the earth were too hot to support life. Could we get to that point again through human fossil fuel burning? It is certainly, theoretically possible. But long before that, we will experience ocean level rises and an increase in erratic, vicious weather patterns that will cost many human lives and alot of money. So at the very least, we are looking at a cost/benefit analysis. Invest today to head this thing off, or pay a much steeper price later. I'd much rather avoid high cholesterol foods today, rather than pay for statins the rest of my life and pay a host of other doctor bills to recuperate from heart disease, if I survive that is. The problem with all this thinking is that it is VERY long term. Most people aren't used to thinking in terms of hundreds or thousands of years. Hell, we can't even think beyond the next 4 years in this country, much less take on problems that would require solutions that span lifetimes.