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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JDN who wrote (169472)	6/11/2006 9:10:03 AM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793843

military channel had a show on ww11 germany, building rockets to take out the states and how we bombed the facilities, then germany built underground concrete buildings, killed thousands in building it by working them numerous hours and staving them. United states determined the way to beat germany was cut of their oil supplies and that was the major effort according to this show that brought germany to and end quickly. we bombed all their refinery , storage facilities, no fuel to fly their planes we took them all next while on the ground with no fuel to burn.

To: JDN who wrote (169472)	6/11/2006 3:37:48 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793843

After watching that show and the effects of the weather, it seemed to me that within the parameters above 7 degrees above 4 degrees below we would be better off with the global warming then the global ice age. jdn Yes, if they were predicting global cooling instead of warming, imagine how dire they would be - crop failures! starvation! running out of fuel! etc. I find it strange that I rarely see discussed one obvious source of higher CO2 in the atmosphere - the shear numbers of mammals on the planet today. When you add up the 6 billion humans and all their assorted livestock - cows, sheep, pigs, horses, dogs, cats, poultry, etc. there must be more than 10 times the animals on the planet, compared to a hundred years ago, all of them breathing in oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide. And relatively less forest cover to use the CO2. I read somewhere that carbon release due to burning fuels was estimated to account for only 7% of atmospheric CO2, while respiration was estimated at 20%. Surely that means that even if every country on the planet cut carbon emissions, it would make very little difference?