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: Zeuspaul who wrote (110)	12/18/1997 6:56:00 PM
From: nic	Respond to of 407

Zeuspaul, while individual scientists are only human, they're a pretty diverse bunch, so the consensus principle has always served them well: what the vast majority of scientists agrees upon is usually as close as we get to a working definition of "truth". So if you feel that the scientific community as a whole "seems to be left wing", maybe it's just that the facts - which after all don't have any political sensibilities - sit more comfortably with the left end of the political spectrum in your country? I believe a large part of the credibility gap scientists face in case of global warming stems from the fact that they're asking for real sacrifices now in order to avoid a large potential problem that - if it occurs at all - is several decades away. It may be the best thing to do from a cost/benefit perspective, but it sure isn't an easy sell! It's like trying to sell insurance for something you're not sure exists. When you want the scoop on how dangerous something is, don't look at the scientists - look at the insurance underwriters. These guys know how to do their risk assessment, and they're clamoring for decisive action re global warming. Another couple of years and they'll start offering premium reductions for industrial clients that take voluntary action in this regard... 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? Interesting question. If I remember right, the "year without summer" last century was a consequence of the Krakatoa (sp?) eruption. Mount St. Helens had a measurable global cooling effect due to dust particles in the athmosphere. But these are rare events, while human activity goes on all day, every day... I do not classify CO2 as chemical soup. This gas occurs naturally in the atmosphere. Sure - but natural doesn't mean harmless. That thinking presupposes the self-regulating power of nature, which we're perfectly capable of overloading these days. If we had a feasible (and cost-effective) way of preventing volcanic eruptions, I'd say let's go for it. As it is, we have to consider the less spectacular eruptions of factories, cars, and cattle. ;-) Merry Christmas everyone, - nic