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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (751855)	11/8/2013 5:59:50 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	3 Recommendations Recommended By FJB longnshort TideGlider Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575939

Well, it's not my statement. It's the UN group on climate science. and you accept it? I just go with the flow on global scientific consensus. It is much easier to let other people do your thinking for you. Could they be wrong? Yes, there is a probability that they are wrong. yes there is But a rational man goes with the odds. A rational man doesn't accept a statement that is absurd. Which the UN's statement is. You made a good point in your post, I made several good points. I think that it is quite possible that humans are accelerating a process that might have happened anyway at a different speed. We could be contributing to warming a little bit...or we could be offsetting cooling. Or, plants can be getting ready to do a population explosion where they suck up all of the CO2 out of the atmosphere and we lose the greenhous effect and we all freeze to death. You don't know. I don't know...and more importantly, the guys getting paid the big bucks...out of our pockets, don't know. 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? you are catching on....all of that coal.....it came from the atmosphere that was much richer in CO2 than ours currently is. And life was quite explosive. Have you considered that we may be doing mother earth a favor by releasing our essential element? Can humans survive the changes to the ecosystem of a globe that warms beyond a certain point? Adapt or die....why shoule the rules be any different for us?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (751855)	11/8/2013 8:00:20 PM
From: d[-_-]b	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB TideGlider Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575939

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 And the fact the co2 levels at one time during a previous ice age were 10X (4000ppm) what they are today. The animals and plants will do fine with warmer temps and more co2 - ice ages kill pretty much everything.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (751855)	11/8/2013 9:31:43 PM
From: combjelly	2 Recommendations Recommended By J_F_Shepard tejek Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1575939

. 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, Sure. But it has been sequestered over hundreds of millions of years and we are putting it back into the system on a scale of hundreds of years. Million to one ratios can have an effect... The Earth will survive. But nothing says we have to be in the mix. Oh, I suspect many in the developed world will survive. But much of the rest of humanity is going to have it pretty tough. Persistent droughts have caused more than one civilization to fall in our history. Not to mention many of our staple crops are adapted for our current climate. Most of them are also grown as a monoculture, so there aren't the gene reservoirs there used to be to help those crops to adapt to a new climate. If you look at the fossil record, you should notice that most mass extinctions occur at the boundaries of climate change. In the past, climate changes were driven by things like super-continents forming or breaking up. Which meant the changes were very slow, yet massive extinctions still occurred. Now the one at the end of the Triassic period, which gave the dinos their chance, was the result of Pangea breaking up. There was a complicating factor that made the resulting mass extinction even worse than most, super-volcanoes. That put a major spike in CO2 release, warming the climate in a relatively short period of time and wiping out a larger number than usual of the extant species. Slow changes kill. Fast changes kill many, many more.