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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (22201)	6/20/2017 10:43:27 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 355626

>> The reason there is a consensus is that, when the evidence and the science is examined, there is a compelling case for climate change. I don't know how compelling it is. It isn't proved, hence, it is a theory. Now, we live with lots of unproved theories. But we're talking about spending very large sums of money -- amounts so huge, that if we are wrong, it will cause irreparable harm that it could well be something we can't recover from. For example, I'm sure you've seen the articles going around about technologies to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. While totally infeasible as of now because the volumes are too low, over time these kinds of technologies mature and suddenly, CO2 is a non-problem. Let the private sector do what it does. Let the private sector take those risks. Because taxpayers have bigger fish to fry. Even if it turned out to be a major problem -- and I accept that people will see things differently -- the private sector is far more likely to solve it than the federal government is. AND WITHOUT DOUBT, giving money to FIJI does not one damned thing to solve the problem. I appreciate that you are immutably committed to the notion of AGW. And that you are knowledgeable. But you are not understanding, or at least not adhering to, a sensible economic value proposition. I find it difficult to believe, with your background, that you support the idea of consensus science. I cannot imagine any real scientist doing that. It is at odds with every bit of curiosity I've had since early childhood. I'm astonished that you would lack that.