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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (3490)	12/17/2008 12:25:32 PM
From: miraje	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

In order to reverse the CO2 production of an ever increasingly modern world (modern life styles require energy and produce CO2) would cost trillions of dollars and hamper economic growth for a generation. It would do a lot worse than "hamper economic growth". The only other option is to shrink the world’s population - and that is not going to happen. Maybe it will. It takes (realistic) energy to grow food. Without such energy, much less food. Without food, people die. Of course the more radical of the ecofreaks, the ones who think that humans are a cancer on the earth, would welcome this scenario. One thing good about the current financial crisis is it has forced the delay of expensive and useless caps on CO2 production... ...The current economic situation has thankfully delayed any talk from the Democrats of such nonsense. I wouldn't bet on this either. With Obama and Pelosi and Reid running the show, one can bet with 100% certainty that more stupid and destructive policies are in the offing.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (3490)	12/17/2008 1:15:03 PM
From: RetiredNow	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86356

That's a misleading report and biased report. It's a bit like me going to a GOP convention and asking them how many people think Obama is doing a great job and then publishing the results as an extrapolation of the population of Americans. That's bad statistics. As far as Al Gore, I bet if I did a poll asking 1,000 scientists if Al Gore was factually accurate in his statements, I'd get 999 who said "No". Al Gore is a salesman and he's been engaged in sales puffery and is profiting handsomely for it. Now back to the real science, which is what the rest of us really care about. The UN body of scientists who prepared the report may have been numbered 52. However, they drew upon the research of thousands of scientists around the world. These 52 (the number of which I'm trusting you on) were more than anything, compilers of data. So if you wanted to do a real study of how many scientists believe the world is warming and that humans are the prime cause, then do a direct poll.