SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (751761)11/7/2013 9:53:46 PM
From: J_F_Shepard  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1575859
 
The laws of science are not probabilities....find an exception with any of them. If you can, its not a law.



To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (751761)11/8/2013 5:03:17 PM
From: RetiredNow  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1575859
 
Well, it's not my statement. It's the UN group on climate science. I just go with the flow on global scientific consensus. Could they be wrong? Yes, there is a probability that they are wrong. But a rational man goes with the odds.

You made a good point in your post, though, which is to ask the question is global warming a bad thing. I think that it is quite possible that humans are accelerating a process that might have happened anyway at a different speed. I also believe that the earth quite possibly can handle the changes we are imposing, given that all the carbon we burn use to be organic at some point, so can we really contribute more gas to a process that is self-contained anyway?

But where humans are concerned, we should be asking two things:
1. Can humans survive the changes to the ecosystem of a globe that warms beyond a certain point?
2. If we can survive, then are the costs of rising oceans, increased incidence of disease and other symptoms of climate change so high as to make it worth it for us to use our technology to slow the warming down?

Those are rational lines of inquiry in my opinion.