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 : Manmade Global Warming, A hoax? A Scam? or a Doomsday Cult? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: 31Floors who wrote (3477)	12/30/2013 12:00:18 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4326

if I'm wrong is will be great, warming has always been good for humans, look at history all the warming periods have been wonderful, more food, more everything. come on warming.

To: 31Floors who wrote (3477)	12/30/2013 12:02:27 PM
From: longnshort	3 Recommendations Recommended By d[-_-]b FJB J.B.C. Respond to of 4326

I bet these guys would like a little warming 'Global warming' scientists trapped in expanding Antarctic ice...

To: 31Floors who wrote (3477)	12/31/2013 3:11:20 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	3 Recommendations Recommended By J.B.C. pocotrader Stephen O Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4326

I saw your response about not wanting to be sarcastic...I appreciate that. I'll do my best as well. The thing about the "what if you're wrong" question is that it cuts both ways. -What if you are wrong about global warming actually exists? (a 150 year sample where temperatures are well within cyclical variations, is hardly evidence, let alone proof). -What if you are right about global warming existing, but that it isn't anthropogenic? (we are at the latter stages of an interglacial period where one would expect to see somewhat warmer temperatures...right before pendulum swings back to the next glacial period. -What if you are right about global warming existing and it is anthropogenic, but you are wrong about it being a net "bad" condition? (As longnshort pointed out, the vast majority of living things thrive with more warmth) -What if you are right about all of the above AND all of the Al Gore worst case scenarios are true? Have you considered the fact that there are dramatic economic effects to dismantling our fossil fuel based economy in favor of economically unfavorable energy sources? Have you considered the idea that the dollar cost and cost in human lives may be significantly greater than just dealing with things as they happen? I'll give you an example. Many people think that an earthquake predictor would be a great thing. So let's say that we have the QuakePredictor3000 and it says that an 8.5 magnitude quake is going to hit Los Angeles in the next 24 hours. Would you make the announcement to the public? First responders have given this some thought and they came to the conclusion that you would have the same amount of damage to the infrastructure as if didn't know it was coming, but you would have a greater loss of life if you made the announcement to the public. The point being, assuming that we have a planetary illness called "global warming", until you have examined whether or not the cure is more harmful than the illness, then you still have more work to do. For the record, I believe that there is measurable warming in the past 150 years. But there is no question that it is well within cyclical variations. I do believe absolutely that man influences the climate. But it is hard to say in which direction. And it is clear that the system has mechanisms to offset most anything that man can come up with. There's absolutely positive evidence that human biological development and civilization has advanced significantly during warming periods. In addition, the vast majority of life forms on the planet thrive with a bit more warmth. Most importantly, there are serious repercussions to eliminating fossil fuels and replacing them with energy sources that are not naturally economically viable. Making some assumptions that you are probably firmly in the middle class since you are here on Silicon Investor, you and I won't see these effects. But there are already devastating effects in areas that have coal based economies. Our policies to fight AGW are creating vast areas of poverty. And where most lay people think of coal miners as backward and poor, they may be right about the backward part (subjective, of course), but a working coal miner is anything but poor. Poverty is not only ugly to look at, it actually kills people. And it's not only the people directly involved with fossil fuel driven local economies. It's poor people in general. By using energy sources that are significantly more expensive than fossil fuels, we are driving the cost of everything up. Obviously energy costs more (we may not see it in raw energy prices, but we do absorb the extra subsidy costs through more taxes), but the cost of everything increases along with it, food, clothing, cars...everything. And when that happens, the people on the margin get sucked below poverty level...which decreases their life expectancy. And of course, it's not just the U.S. that is hit by this....as a matter of fact, we will probably be less affected than the rest of the world. All that being said, we now have the climate gurus who have undeniably altered data and subverted the scientific method at multiple levels. These are the guys who are telling us that we have to dismantle the foundation of our culture and economy to the tune of trillions of dollars and they can't be bothered to take the responsibility and extra care to ensure the integrity of their processes. They went into this with a predetermined outcome and they made damn sure that what they showed us supported their predetermined views. They never bothered to ask the questions up above. What do they care? it's not their trillion dollars that is going to pay for the changes. It's not their family who is going to be out of a job and shoved below the poverty line.