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: Moominoid who wrote (61874)	4/13/2005 2:03:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74559

Ah, there's the problem Moom. You mean atmospheric CO2 has increased 30% and I mean how much CO2 has come from PEOPLE burning fossil carbon. They are two totally different things. Not all the CO2 increase can necessarily be ascribed to people. Unless shown to be from people, it could be other sources combined. < < About 3% is CO2, but only a tiny fraction of this is the result of human activities. > Hello Gib. I think about 15% of atmospheric CO2 came from human sources, so there isn't much effect if your other numbers are correct; something like 0.5%, which isn't exactly a big deal. > How about Chris De Freitas? See, it's not just me who thinks the CO2 panics are not very well founded. I happen to think they are completely back to front. It had got cold because the Earth had been stripped of the carbon. Cold is NOT good. Earth was heading for being a completely frozen little ball as the remaining life was unable to hold back the encroaching ice which reflects light [and therefore heat]. Runaway hot isn't good either, but there is no chance of that due to CO2 production. A bit of extra warmth and CO2 is a good thing. Mqurice