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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (44539)	10/10/2000 9:38:29 AM
From: haqihana	Respond to of 769667

carranza, To begin with, I made it clear that I drove a Jeep, which is smaller than either of the Fords you mentioned, and has a 6 cylinder engine which, as I explained, produces no more CO2 than a normal automobile, which I feel sure you drive to work, or the super market, every day. I am, totally, against the desecrating of the rain forests, and have spoken out against it on many occasions but, have not seen many rain forests in, or around, any American cities. I do not like that fact, but it is a bit late to do much about it. The internal combustion engine has been around longer than the 100 year window you seem to associate with it, and although I would not mind all of society to go back to using the horse and ox for transportation, to wish for such is not realistic. Next, I don't give a tinker's damn what third world countries think about anything. There have always been backward countries, and there always will be. And there is no more global warming than there has been in the past. If you want to worry about something, be concerned about the loss of the ozone layer. ~H~

To: carranza2 who wrote (44539)	10/10/2000 9:42:25 AM
From: J.B.C.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

carranza, don't be stupid, use your head and think for once. CO2 is the most efficient output of a burning fuel. It's the product you WANT. Inefficient combustion of fossil fuels produced a lot of sh*t far more dangerous. Where did you get that stat that it takes a century for plants to process the CO2, what bunk. Water Vapor is far more dangerous to global warming than any gas by far. I know you've heard a weather report tell you that your local temperature was going to really drop because there was no cloud cover (water vapor), or that tonights temperature won't be as cold because of the cloud cover (water vapor). Ain't ever heard the weather man tell me that local temperatures were going to stay because the co2 levels were up .06% today. Shall we outlaw oceans, the Great Lakes, rainfall, etc??????? >> Any idiot who tells you that increased CO2 will not result in global warming is too stupid to talk to.<< That usually is a red flag to me that the person making the statement has no clue. Signed An Idiot Engineer (I.Q. 140+)