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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (24742)	10/30/2002 5:11:45 PM
From: Steve Lee	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

"All that oil used to be alive and having fun in the biosphere" Is there any proof of that? I thought oil companies made up the rumour that oil is a fossil fuel to justify its high price as a "scarcity". Don't you think 100+ yrs later someone would have been able to prove it?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (24742)	10/30/2002 5:19:28 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

Carranza, but SUVs are good for the environment. Oh, well, could I have possibly expected anything less from a former BP guy? Yes, we need more CO2 so we might have more heat, less polar ice, fewer islands, more air conditioning, more concrete, more hurricanes and typhoons, fewer fish, bigger insects, fewer rain forests, fewer polar bears, fewer penguins, fewer seals, less marine life all around, more oncologists, more soap for more frequent bathing, stronger deodorants, worldwide Ebola and other nasty bugs, more tropical disease specialists, dirtier water, fewer wetlands, ad nauseam. One bright spot, depending on your age and physical attributes, is that we'll need less clothing. C2@easytosayfromthepastoralsylvanmeadowsofhobbitland.com