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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (761)	9/4/2011 1:47:16 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	6 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

I can't argue the science--I don't have the background. What I think most reasonable people would assert is that it would be prudent to take some steps to hedge our bets in case man made activity is causing the warming. By their own models, an enormously expensive effort to lower carbon emissions would make only tiny (small fractions of a degree) difference in temperatures. Rationally, it's a cost-benefit analysis. You don't spend trillions of dollars to try to avert a 1% chance of a billions dollars of damage, which is I think pretty close to what the AGW alarmists are proposing, chiefly because the "crisis" has become cover for a lot of global-governance aims by the watermelons (=green outside, red inside). That's why Bjorn Lomberg wrote The Skeptical Environmentalist, pointing out prudent things to do that might actually make sense on a cost-benefit basis. Lomberg accepts the global warming hypothesis, but not the proposed "solutions".