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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (11197)	11/7/2006 11:18:57 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217740

I think what has happened is that the eminently sensible prevention of pollution by lead, benzene, CFC, particulate, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and other nasty and dangerous chemicals has been largely done, and now the anti-oil, anti-Big-Business, anti-pollution religion needs another Devil to demonize. CO2 has been on the boil since my time in the early 1980s on these matters. I even invented a now-patented method [by Mitsubishi] to prevent the Greenhouse Effect = compression of CO2 from power stations to liquid and piping it 400 metres [or more] below sea level [to get sufficient pressure to keep it a liquid, using the fall to generate electricity]. The Greenhouse Effect is now being discovered by newbies who attend movies and do their thinking in slogans, feelings and beliefs. They couldn't do chemistry at school, but they can get their heads around carbon dioxide acting like a blanket and because they understand it, [more or less], they feel it must be true. People love a good Nuremberg rally, lining up in rows to point to Mecca and chant in unison with their hands on their hearts to show allegiance to the tribe. This seems to me to be more of the same. While it's true that more CO2 in the atmosphere will help keep the place warmer than it would be with less [other variables being the same], that's far from showing that we were better off as we were, before the anthropogenicity. So what if global average temperature is up 0.7 degrees Celsius? What is the average global maximum up? What about the minimum? What's the thermodynamic balance for Earth - meaning let's do some enthalpy calculations? If Earth is going to make like a steam engine, there are century-old engineering tracts on thermodynamics to haul out of the attic [I think I still have mine lurking somewhere]. One shouldn't just measure a single variable "global average temperature", declare victory and leave. That's what you do in Iraq, Vietnam, Mogadishu etc. I have yet to read anything in popular media "public debate" about the stupendously vast stripping of the ecosphere of carbon and its deposition in enormous limestone, bituminous and other permanent graves and the effect of that on the climate. People have the false idea that Earth has historically been "in balance". That is not true. It has always been on a one way trip in a freezing and crystallizing process. It was hot residue 5 billion years ago. It has been cooling ever since and the ice age has been growing in strength over the eons. We are reaching a tipping point = into a big freeze. Venus has nearly all its carbon still in the atmosphere. Earth has almost none. We are on our last legs. We have been bringing a little bit of it back into business. A tiny little bit. I would be interested to read Murdoch's views on those matters [or any "scientists"] and why they are wrong or don't matter. Mqurice