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: Wharf Rat who wrote (892647)	10/9/2015 12:14:30 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586109

Dr. Goebbels would be proud of you!

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (892647)	10/9/2015 3:17:24 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586109

"Climate change has been caused by humanity" isn't really the issue. If your calling for massive action on climate change you need something like "Human emission of CO2 (or other action or list of actions) is the overwhelming cause of global warming, and if we drastically reduce human emission of CO2 things will be ok, but if we don't there will be a horrible disaster which will cause far more damage then any harm caused by <<list of supported actions to reduce human emission of CO2>> will cause". If the globe is warming and will continue to warm, and human emission of CO2 is the reason, that doesn't get you there. You have to show that 1 - The warming is massively harmful. 2 - That the harm is much greaer or at least clearly and noticeably greater then the harm caused by the plans your pushing to reduce CO2. 3 - That the plans your pushing to reduce CO2 emissions will actually work. That the economics and politics of them actually work (something that has just about nothing to do with climate science), and that if implemented they will noticeably reduce human emission of CO2, and that this reduction will reduce global warming. 4 - That there isn't better ways to counteract or mitigate global warming other then reducing CO2 emissions. 5 - That there are not better ways to use the resources you would assign to this effort to reduce human suffering and death more and more cost effectively then human emission of CO2. There is no universal or 99% or 97% agreement on that combination, and it isn't something that any of the organizations in your list (or any other person or organization) could reasonably be considered the sort of expert that should be deferred to on such issues.