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 (1422037)	10/14/2023 7:11:05 PM
From: Sdgla	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571808

That blame goes right to you esg climate Nazis. Shutting you down in 25 & bringing USA Nat Gas & oil to the world.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1422037)	10/15/2023 3:47:40 AM
From: Maple MAGA	1 Recommendation Recommended By Mick Mørmøny Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571808

Are you now an Israeli trapped inside an American's body? A fraction of something is a tiny amount or proportion of it. “I have looked over the draft of the EED reply to the request from O’Loughlin. The only real problem I have is with the second clause of the last sentence in the first paragraph: “but changes of a magnitude well short of catastrophic…” I think this statement may be too reassuring. Whereas I can agree with the statement that our best guess is that observable effects in the year 2030 are likely to be “well short of catastrophic”, it is distinctly possible that the CPD scenario will later produce effects which will indeed be catastrophic (at least for a substantial fraction of the earth’s population). This is because the global ecosystem in 2030 might still be in a transient, headed for much more significant effects after time lags perhaps of the order of decades. If this indeed turns out to be case, it is very likely that we will unambiguously recognize the threat by the year 2000 because of advances in climate modeling and the beginning of real experimental confirmation of the co2 effect. The effects of such a recognition on subsequent fossil fuel combustion are unpredictable, but one can say that predictions based only on our knowledge of availability and economics become hazardous.” Could Cohen's intention have been something along these lines? I believe you might be interpreting his memo out of context, and your response appears to be a typical knee-jerk reaction. Cohen could have benefited from improving his writing skills before earning his PhD, as the memo seems to be written in a rather incoherent manner, almost as if he was under the influence while composing it. "I've reviewed the EED response draft to O’Loughlin's request. My primary concern lies with the second clause of the last sentence in the first paragraph, specifically, the phrase "but changes of a magnitude well short of catastrophic..." I believe this statement might be overly reassuring. While I can acknowledge that, based on our best estimates, observable effects in 2040 are likely to fall short of being "catastrophic," it is entirely possible that the CPD scenario could eventually lead to genuinely catastrophic effects, especially for a significant portion of the global population. This potential risk arises from the fact that the global ecosystem in 2030 might still be in a transient state, heading towards considerably more substantial effects after possible time lags of decades. If this scenario materializes, it's highly likely that we will unequivocally recognize this threat by the year 2000, thanks to advancements in climate modeling and the commencement of concrete experimental confirmation of the CO2 effect. The consequences of such a recognition on future fossil fuel consumption are unpredictable, but we can assert that predictions relying solely on our understanding of availability and economics would become increasingly precarious."