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: J_F_Shepard who wrote (600262)	2/8/2011 9:21:42 PM
From: jlallen	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570760

Gawd you are SUCH a boob...

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (600262)	2/9/2011 8:25:09 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570760

Saying nothing about a concern != saying or implying there is no concern. It suggests that it isn't an overwhelming concern, because such a massive concern would tend to come out in posts on related subjects, but not that it isn't a concern at all. More to the point "saying nothing about a concern" is simply false. For example I posted (to you) "...if global warming occurs in a significant way, the effect of the warming would likely be negative...". I also posted about how higher sea levels could possibly be a severe problem (while at the same time posting that the sea levels would likely only increase slowly, so that most likely the situation could be dealt less expensively than it could be stopped). And that's your view of the benefits of reducing CO2? ...or increasing The net climate effect of reducing CO2 emission would be to reduce the extent people increase one factor that contributes to warming. But since there are many other factors that determine climate its an open question whether this reduction would be significant, or if it is that it would be positive. If I had to guess I'd say negative is a bit more likely than positive, but that uncertain and/or insignificant is more likely than either highly negative or highly positive. Of course that's ignore non-climate costs or benefits, only looking at the climate. And it just hand waves away the difficulties of getting a reduction. Reducing CO2 simply isn't going to happen in the short run. Even in the unlikely event that the US reduces significantly, other countries will continue to increase, likely more than the US can cut, possibly more BECAUSE the US is cutting.