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.

Technology Stocks : FCL - FuelCell Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: see clearly now who wrote (106)	12/15/1997 11:00:00 AM
From: nic	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 407

Zeuspaul & Arni, can't check out the link right now (no response), so this is off the top of my head (so take it with a grain of salt): who is the Heritage foundations The Heritage Foundation is a think tank way over in the conservative republican camp. Personally, I would trust them about as much as the Tobacco Institute. Impartially, I'd say their advice on environmental policy is about as mainstream as that of Friends of the Earth. why use 1992 statistics Maybe because every year since then has been among the hottest on record? Or because since then our accurracy in measuring global temperature has improved a lot? OK, to be fair: I don't know. even if we are not sure would you bet your planet on it? Exactly - as painful as it may be, at this point the only prudent action is to reduce the suspected causes of a suspected problem. The need for being so cautious stems from the huge downside risk of it turning out to be an actual problem for human life on this planet. Call it hedging... - nic

To: see clearly now who wrote (106)	12/15/1997 10:37:00 PM
From: Zeuspaul	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 407

Arnie, I don't konw anything about the Heritage foundation but they appear to be right wing. The scientific community seems to be left wing however so I believe we should look at both sides. I just wanted to know if the statements are true. I personally do not believe the statements coming from the scientific community anymore. I believe they have lost credibility. This is unfortunate because there isn't another authority to take their place. I have always held the scientific community in high regard. Now it seems that peer pressure in the name of a clean environment clouds good science. What scientist would show his face at a dinner party if he didn't support this noble cause? The reasoning is always the same..It is better to be safe than sorry...If we lose the credibility of our scientists we will be sorry. I do not classify CO2 as chemical soup. This gas occurs naturally in the atmosphere. A lot of money will be spent to reduce CO2. Tax incentives is money spent. I believe we should invest our financial resources wisely. I have often wondered the magnitude of mans influence. For example: Does anyone know how much green house gas is emitted from a large volcanic eruption as compared to all automotive emissions?