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 (114145)	6/29/2009 12:39:29 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541430

Yikes. Not sure why I elicited that rather confrontational post! Or maybe it wasn't, but you thought I was rejecting the argument? I was expressing an opinion about the style of Krugman, not his content, and I certainly wasn't dismissing changes in climate. Undecided? Yes. I am not qualified to understand the science at the level necessary to have a reliable view. But because it makes sense to me to find alternative energies, and to do what we can to slow our own contributions to warming and pollution, regardless of the cause, I back reasonable efforts to do so, and find the RW's attempts to fight it based on classification (GW v. climate change or whatever) puzzling. How many times do we have to hear "WOw, it's snowing here! So much for GW!" (It's been in the 100s here this week. Wow, must BE GW!) John may hear irony when he reads Krugman, but most people, either because they don't appreciate K quite as much, or because they aren't tuned into nuanced "irony", will find him more Rushlike. I know the RW hears irony and wit in Rush that I don't.

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (114145)	6/29/2009 12:56:06 PM
From: Alastair McIntosh	Respond to of 541430

The National Cancer doesn't support your view: (America has a huge increase in the numbers of cancers..) Annual Report to the Nation Finds Declines in Cancer Incidence and Death Rates; Special Feature Reveals Wide Variations in Lung Cancer Trends across States A new report from the nation's leading cancer organizations shows that, for the first time since the report was first issued in 1998, both incidence and death rates for all cancers combined are decreasing for both men and women, driven largely by declines in some of the most common types of cancer. The report notes that, although the decreases in overall cancer incidence and death rates are encouraging, large state and regional differences in lung cancer trends among women underscore the need to strengthen many state tobacco control programs. The findings come from the "Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975-2005, Featuring Trends in Lung Cancer, Tobacco Use and Tobacco Control", online Nov. 25, 2008, and appearing in the Dec. 2, 2008, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Although cancer death rates have been dropping since the publication of the first Annual Report to the Nation 10 years ago, the latest edition marks the first time the report has documented a simultaneous decline in cancer incidence, the rate at which new cancers are diagnosed, for both men and women. Based on the long-term incidence trend, rates for all cancers combined decreased 0.8 percent per year from 1999 through 2005 for both sexes combined; rates decreased 1.8 percent per year from 2001 through 2005 for men and 0.6 percent per year from 1998 through 2005 for women. The decline in both incidence and death rates for all cancers combined is due in large part to declines in the three most common cancers among men (lung, colon/rectum, and prostate) and the two most common cancers among women (breast and colon/rectum), combined with a leveling off of lung cancer death rates among women. nci.nih.gov

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (114145)	6/29/2009 2:11:14 PM
From: d[-_-]b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541430

Do you think that the transfer of wealth from America to third world countries is good for America? So if you artificially raise the cost of energy in the USA do you think companies will transfer even more manufacturing jobs overseas? The fact is peak oil is approaching and this attempt to hasten our conversion while aiding other countries to lower their energy costs is suicide. This is a classic problem that will solve itself in due time - as oil prices rise worldwide, solutions will appear to fill the need. Furthermore. nuclear power is already green and proven - why all this investment in "green research" and not actual plant construction is simply wasteful pie in the sky appealing to the wishful thinkers.