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: Rambi who wrote (114155)	6/29/2009 1:39:19 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543274

I prefer the direction independent term "Global Climate Change". That the climate is changing is unarguable. Let's say humans had no impact but the Earth was going to get 15 degC hotter anyway. Should we / would we do anything? Man has been modifying the climate by redirecting water flows, digging wells, seeding crops, etc. for 20,000 years. Why stop now? But we would be idiots to ignore the warnings of increased ocean depth, storm intensity, algal blooms, and desertification. The most important piece of information I can provide to people is that the poles of Mars are melting and a number of other planets are experiencing warming. There are a number of indications that what is happening on Earth may be part of a bigger set of changes such as proton flux or some other factor. Since there are no SUVs on Mars, we may simply be moving from a less dense part of the galaxy to a more dense part of the galaxy. We would be foolish if we chose to do nothing because "it isn't our fault". If one's house is falling down because there is an earthquake, it doesn't matter that the house was "built properly" or that the "contractor is not to blame". As a bunch of people on raft in space, we should always be looking to keep homeostasis going on our sweet little rock. If we are experiencing friction from our interaction with interstellar proton flux we are just as screwed as if it is from burning fossil fuels. Reducing CO2 levels is a good deterrent to further heating. news.nationalgeographic.com livescience.com

To: Rambi who wrote (114155)	6/29/2009 1:44:53 PM
From: Steve Lokness	Respond to of 543274

rambi; that for most of us the science is beyond our level, but that's no reason not to address the issues of healthier fuels, to curb pollution where we can, etc. While I do agree with you that the science is beyond our level - I think I do differ with you though in that I think there is a better argument for addressing GW than the science - which as you say reasonable people can disagree on. Who really understands CO2 contributions to GW? Still though, when I see melting ice caps and melting glaciers on a planet as big as the earth, I think we should all sit up and take notice. But most people will live in denial. People in denial - people who look at the ice caps and somehow are able to dismiss this melting - can still understand less scientific reasons for having a wise energy policy. That is the effective argument in my mind - the argument Krugman didn't make. None of these comments are meant as pertaining to you on a personal level - only as an argument for the most effective policy for our energy future. respectfully; steve