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: Lane3 who wrote (130830)	2/14/2010 7:46:13 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Respond to of 542232

<<<Sensible approach from the WaPo's Milbank.>>> Perfect link to a type of story that realy gets under my skin. These are stories or opinion pieces that mitigate awful people and their awful positions with some niggly counter points. On the one hand you have awful people trashing an abundance of solid scientific evidence but on the other hand they point to people making statements that lends itself to be misconstrued.

To: Lane3 who wrote (130830)	2/14/2010 8:03:29 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542232

I don't have any problem with the whole "foreign oil" emphasis- except that it skips over a lot of the major problems we may face with climate change- like problems with water resources, infrastructure (like dams) or the fact that shifting weather patterns may mean we need to rethink the way cities are designed, or where homes are built. There is probably no one who is spot on about climate change- and that kind of insecurity makes some people irrationally immobile. Or in Graham's case, he's going to try to glue the whole mess on to an issue he likes. The wise thing to do, imo, would be a triage system. We really ought to be ranking threats based on the loss of life or property, and trying to get some sense of the probability of risk- because in some cases even without climate change some areas are at risk- and perhaps we ought to be focusing on the things we need to change anyway, which will also be even more threatening if the climate changes. I've always thought pollution control pretty much fit that bill- and shoring up dams and levees- always a good idea. But some people are so focused on fighting over how, exactly, the climate is changing (or not changing), they can't do anything- which strikes me as pretty stupid, but then people in general strike me that way, so no surprise there.