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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: long-gone who wrote (88793)	8/15/2002 1:14:45 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 116753

After 9-11 a climatologist who was studying the effect onm weather of the contrails (condensation vapour trails from the jet exhaust) -- from jet aircraft. He looked at the data for the resulting 3 week jet transport shutdown. He had been looking for reliable data since the 1950's, but could only get a maximum one day intervals of air traffic dormancy. This was too little to work with. This 3 week period gave him a wealth of data. It was thought that the contrails could affect heating of the near earth air mass. What he found astounded him. The jet contrails affected weather far more than anybody had imagined. During the 3 week shutdown there was a marked heating period that could only be explained after careful statistical analysis as the result of the absence of jets. If the jets can change the heat of the planet that much, it should be apparent to any fool that man made changes of green house gases which are more massive by far than the effect to the jets, and the depeletion of the ozone layer must have very real effect on the planet. We know the result that carbon dioxide has on heating. We know what freon does to ozone. the only question is now, what overall effect does it have on temperature? Can it have no or negligible effect? It would seem from the lesson of the jet contrails we would be kidding ourselves about no effect. The only thing that could tell us to any degree of certainty without real inputs ise really large scale and correct or adaptive self correcting mathematical model, with volunteer distributed computing. Or--> A trial where we turn off greenhouse gases or markedly reduce them for some long period(s).. with some repeats over time for statistical certainty. It takes sacrifice, but what are the alternatives? Crop failure? Species death? Desertification? The computing we could do right now with volunteer work. The question is there. It takes people getting together to answer it. EC<:-}

To: long-gone who wrote (88793)	8/15/2002 1:32:12 AM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 116753

What this means is more and much safer nukes. Or billions in fusion research.. now... The final question is,. can we take the chance of more fuel burning.. if we are wrong.. and it is not benign.. even given what we know about smog.. how wrong are we... whereas if we go to borohydrate fuel cells, air, sea, and sun power now.. or green distibuted power, even given the higher initial cost.. what is the harm? 1. nukes can be made safer. pebble bed and wide area bed low level heater could be done. 2. fusion power is feasible with research 3. wind, air, sun cell and sea stuff could be done now. A no brainer. So if we do 1 ,2 and 3, and we are wrong. Fuel could have been used, how is this a hangnail? In the end do we dare take such huge chance with climate by continuing with fossil burning when we are going to run out anyway and could permamemtly damage our habitat in the greedy meantime? EC<:-}

To: long-gone who wrote (88793)	8/15/2002 8:29:09 AM
From: Richnorth	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116753

Why even allies are now anti-US Unilateral plan to oust Saddam One-sided support for Israel Rejection of world criminal court Blanket arrest of terror suspects Steel tariffs and farm subsidies Refusal to back global warming pact OXFORD (Britain) - The stockpile of global sympathy and goodwill for the United States after Sept 11 has dissipated - replaced by a rising anti-American sentiment that has turned into a contagion now spreading across the globe. Anti-Americanism is no longer limited to religious radicals and terrorists who resent the US, but is infecting even the US' most important allies in Europe. No longer sympathetic with a post-Sept 11 America, protestors in London vent their anger against US foreign policy on Iraq and other world issues. -- USA TODAY Analysts blame this on a series of new US policies widely considered to be selfish and unilateral, including President George W. Bush's plans to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Here in Britain, the US' staunchest friend, snide remarks and downright animosity greet many Americans these days. In virulent prose, newspapers criticise the US. Politicians attack its foreign policies ferociously, especially its plans to attack Iraq. And regular citizens launch into tirades with American friends and visitors. What happened, many Americans are wondering, to all that global goodwill? 'It was squandered,' said Mr Meghnad Desai, director of the Institute for Global Governance at the London School of Economics and Political Science and a member of the House of Lords. 'America dissipated the goodwill out of its arrogance and incompetence. A lot of people who would never, ever have considered themselves anti-American are now very distressed with the US.' Recent US policies - stretching back to Mr Bush's refusal last year to support the treaty on global warming - have drawn flak for being selfish and unilateral. Many are enraged by Mr Bush's support for steel tariffs and farm subsidies, his refusal to involve the US in the new International Criminal Court and what is widely regarded abroad as one-sided support for Israel and its prime minister, Mr Ariel Sharon. The rash of corporate malfeasance and the blanket arrest of terrorism suspects after Sept 11 has given further fuel to critics, who say the US preaches democracy, human rights and free enterprise - but doesn't practise them. In a recent article in Policy Review magazine, Mr Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, said the divide between the US and Europe was getting wider than ever as they went their different ways - one with a foreign policy based on unilateralism and coercion, the other based on diplomacy and persuasion. Europeans, he said, had 'come to view the United tates simply as a rogue colossus, in many respects a bigger threat to their pacific ideals than Iraq or Iran'. In Germany earlier this month, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder launched his re-election campaign by denouncing what he derisively called Mr Bush's proposed military 'adventures' in Iraq. In Britain, the new head of the Anglican Church and other bishops circulated a petition proclaiming any attack on Iraq illegal and immoral. Mr Peter Peterson, chairman of the US Council for Foreign Relations, said: 'Around the world, from Western Europe to the Far East, many see the US as arrogant, hypocritical, self-absorbed, self-indulgent and contemptuous of others. 'This is not a Muslim country issue. It has metastasised to the rest of the world and some of our closest European allies.' --USA Today