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 (798)	9/4/2011 8:56:09 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	6 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 85487

What is/are some of Lomberg's bigger solutions to the problem? (Broadly speaking) Some switch to new fuels plus nuclear energy, some carbon capture, mostly plans to adapt to changing conditions. The thing about AGW is, the headlines are always super scary because they're trying to stampede you. But the report isn't as bad as the headlines. You read the report, and they predict things like 3 or 4 degrees rise in a century, and perhaps 6 to 18 inch rise in sea level. This sounds scary if you don't know that sea levels have been rising a foot per century for roughly the last 8000 years, since the end of the last ice age. Basically, what the AGW crowd is predicting -- assuming it all comes true, a big IF -- is nothing we couldn't adapt to; they are just spinning scare stories. Every notice how every single effect of AGW everywhere is supposed to be bad, which defies common sense? Even if the frozen tundra warms by a few degrees, we are supposed to weep over the fate of the polar bears (who survived the last 10 interglacials very nicely, thank you, and don't need our help)?