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 : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Archie Meeties who wrote (23191)	5/30/2003 7:48:55 PM
From: quehubo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206108

Arch - I have seen data from the US EPA that shows that the air in the USA is very significantly cleaner now than it was 20-30 years ago. Fuel consumption has increased dramatically since then. Because of emissions control devices we are burning much more fuel and emitting far less absolute tons of pollutants. Problem #1. "The consumption and production of oil spoil the environment." His reply - "air pollution from combustion-diminish as technology progresses" - a childish distortion of the truth. Engines have become more efficient, but air pollution from combustion has not diminished because a) the total number of sources has increased b)efficiecy gains are offset by larger engines (ie avg. fuel economy hasn't changed - or has it gotten worse?).

To: Archie Meeties who wrote (23191)	6/10/2003 8:55:07 PM
From: Tomas	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 206108

No Archimedes, it is NOT overwhelmingly accepted by those who spend their life studying it that burning oil causes global warming. Harvard study says global warming normal World Oil Magazine, June 2003 issue By Thomas R. Wright, Jr., Publisher Research by a team from Harvard University casts serious doubt on claims that man-made pollution is causing global warming (GW), in fact indicating that the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages. This is in contrast to what environmentalists have said from the beginning of the GW debate - that temperatures are rising higher and faster than ever before because of greenhouse gases from cars and power stations. A review of more than 240 scientific studies showed that today's temperatures are not the warmest over the past millennium and they are not producing more extreme weather. The team from Harvard examined findings of studies of so-called temperature proxies such as tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts that allow scientists to estimate temperatures prevailing at sites around the world. The findings indicate that the world experienced a Medieval warm period between the ninth and fourteenth centuries with global temperatures significantly higher than today. They also confirm that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during which the world cooled. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up again, but has yet to reach temperatures of the Middle Ages. The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is significant, since it implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's temperature rise. The researchers say the evidence confirms suspicions that today's unprecedented temperatures are simply the result of examining temperature change over too short a period of time. The study, which will be published in Energy and Environment, has been welcomed by skeptics of global warming. Dr. Philip Stott, professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University of London, told The Telegraph, "What has been forgotten in all the discussion about global warming is a proper sense of history. During the Medieval warm period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone. When the temperature started to drop, harvests failed and England's vine industry died. It makes one wonder why there is so much fear of warmth." World Oil Magazine, June 2003 issue: worldoil.com