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 : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (33751)	3/2/2013 8:12:04 PM
From: Solon	1 Recommendation Respond to of 69300

I am well aware that some people (even some scientists) deny the role human activity plays (and may play) in the climate from place to place across our planet. I am aware that at one time some people (even some scientists) denied the role human activity played in the production of sulfur dioxides across our planet--or (while partially admitting the role)--yet refused to remark the harmful consequences with the requisite sobriety. I am not a climate change alarmist, and I am fully aware that any admission of human responsibility requires human change and that means economic consequences. But, I believe that reality will always be the arbiter--whether we kick, scream, deny...or give our fullest and most sincere willingness to accept wherever the facts may lead. The consequences of climate change are huge in terms of both social and economic costs. The consequences do not care who or what causes the harm. But if people can do anything to prevent or mediate the harmful consequences...I think they should do what sincere and responsible people do: 1). Honestly investigate the matter in a scientific manner without prejudice or political influence of any kind--especially without any input from political or economic interests. (And the oil and industrial magnates can shut the f_ck up! This is a human issue concerning all people--just as sulfur dioxides was and is). 2). Put their conclusions before the public with recommendations to direct our elected leaders to take appropriate actions to protect the public interest. Simple, right?? So have a look at these Environmental Agencies and tell me which (if any) have failed to utilize good Scientific research and resources and have thus presented the public with untrustworthy conclusions and recomendations?? There must be several hundred of them listed here from every country in the world...right? en.wikipedia.org Conspiracy? Well...maybe. Could be a conspiracy--right?? Let me know what you find out...