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: Sdgla who wrote (2686)	9/24/2011 6:54:53 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Yes, it is, and the Big U is even older, and it may not be the only one. "115 years worth of analysis ...The industrial revolution was born some 270 years ago" Yes, it was, and that's why the baseline CO2, 280 PPM, is from 1750; it's just that nobody was collecting air samples at the time, possibly cuz it wasn't until around `1850 that the thermal properties of the greenhouse gases were discovered. Oddly enuf, Tyndall, in his paper, dd not suggest we start collecting data from our satellites, nor did he suggest using isotopes of carbon and oxygen to study the problem. Some fault him for that, and he wasn't awarded the Nobel Prize for his discovery. Some argue in favor of the Early Anthropocene Era, beginning 8000 years ago, which means there have been enuf people on Earth to influence the planet 1000 years longer than "we've been around", which is very interesting. "Wouldn't you agree the that the cure you are prescribing could possibly kill as many, if not more, people" Wouldn't you agree that no thinking person would ask that question? I suppose a hang glider could be blinded by the glare off a solar farm and fly into the ground, or surfers might get munched trying to ride the length of a wave generator, but that we can chalk up to "Darwin Award Winner" luck.

To: Sdgla who wrote (2686)	9/24/2011 7:27:21 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	5 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 85487

Wouldn't you agree the that the cure you are prescribing could possibly kill as many, if not more, people than your projected consequences ? This is the thing that trumps every other argument. The CAGW crowd comes up with all kinds of wild speculation about what could happen if the global average temperature goes up 1/2 of a degree and then completely dismisses the direct and indirect ramifications of eliminating the carbon culture. People would die not only from the lack of energy, but the economic ramifications would force millions of people into starvation level poverty.