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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (448770)	1/19/2009 5:10:01 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1576392

"I don't think YOU do." You think a lot of things that have no basis in reality. "Anyone who thinks salting the streets of Seattle a couple times a year, if that, could have a material environmental impact on Puget Sound, probably isn't the most pragmatic of environmentalists." Anyone who thinks it isn't possible to any impact at all is not working from a rational point of view. You do not have a basis to claim that it can have no effect. Especially in the marshes. I am not saying it will, I don't have that information either. I have seen where a few million gallons of unknown hydrocarbon waste, stored in 55 gallon drums and buried in a marsh, can effect a very large marsh over the course of decades. A large enough effect where the damage was visible from space with 1970s era technology. "The resilience of the Earth is far greater than anything Man can throw at it at this point." Right. Which is why Lake Erie was on the verge of terminal eutrophication during the 1970s until remediation procedures brought it back. Note, not only was the eutrophication caused by humans, we were also able to fix the problem. Or the Cuyahoga. Ask Tenchu about this one "above the Cuyahoga there rises an awful smell. Some say it is the river, others say Cornell...". It was polluted so badly that it actually caught on fire. To take more current issues, what about the large, and growing anoxic bottom water areas in the Gulf of Mexico? Or in the New York Bight? Humans have and had an enormous impact on the ecologies of the world. And has for a long time. Now, it might be a coincidence, but when you look at the fossil record, you see that whenever we find the earliest traces of humans moving into a new continent, most of the megafauna vanishes within a few centuries. You could blame climate changes, but it seems odd that those changes always seem to occur as soon as humans show up. "Remember how burning the oil wells in Kuwait was going to cause a "nuclear winter"?" No I don't. I do remember Carl saying it was possible. Thankfully, it didn't work out that way.

To: i-node who wrote (448770)	1/19/2009 9:11:42 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1576392

The resilience of the Earth is far greater than anything Man can throw at it at this point. Do you know that its believed the climate of Iraq was much wetter....think Hanging Gardens of Babylon wetter? There were important forests along its western boundary that were cut down by man. Eventually the climate became much drier....much like it is today. Its believed cutting down those forests did the trick. There is similar evidence of localized climate change like that throughout the world. Los Angeles is far more humid due human habitation than it was 200 years ago. Due to the cutting down of trees, Beijing is faced with incredible dust storms in the summer and the ongoing encroachment of the adjacent desert. Why would you want to risk fukking with our climate because you think the earth is "resilent"? Doesn't make any sense.