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: SilentZ who wrote (600047)	2/5/2011 8:17:02 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570547

It's clearly laid out in a ten-year old Sci-fi trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson, based on the climate science THEN - check the book titles: amazon.com What's happening is only news to the troglodytes..

To: SilentZ who wrote (600047)	2/6/2011 12:10:54 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570547

Z, > I'm just for capping, period. Doesn't change what I said about rationing for questionable ends. There are literally billions of variables that affect the global climate. CO2 is just one of them. It makes NO sense to resort to draconian measures just to control a single variable. Not only that, but the law of unintended consequences is a bitch, especially when it comes to the environment. You want to push for "alternative energy" like solar and wind? Think about how much wind turbines and solar panels affect the local environment around them. Even hydro energy is killing off salmon in the Pacific Northwest. Think that won't upset the balance of the local ecosystem? Progress is progress when the benefits outweigh the trade-offs. CO2-capping is not progress. It's a big step backwards. Tenchusatsu