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 : Oil Sands and Related Stocks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gold Beach who wrote (15865)	4/20/2007 12:35:26 AM
From: SofaSpud	Respond to of 25575

OT? Yes, Gold, I'm skeptical on the issue of anthropogenic global warming. I do wonder at the fact that there's a thermonuclear reactor, about 875,000 miles across, only 93M miles away, that doesn't seem to be all that consistent in its output... And I'm skeptical about computer climate modelling. Some years ago I was part of a team that did economic modelling. There were very high-powered PhD's on the team, some of the best in the world, working for a central bank. For several years they poured considerable resources into this model, doing quarterly projections of the economy, which is, after all, an entirely human creation. Eventually they abandoned the effort, since the model didn't give them any meaningful insight. If the best talent in the world can't effectively model an entirely human creation like the economy, I have to wonder how well computer models are giving us insight into climate.

To: Gold Beach who wrote (15865)	4/20/2007 10:59:14 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25575

GB, Seems like some people are blaming all of the global warming on coal burning plants/oil and that the judge and jury have decided for all of us that sun spots have nothing to do with global warming. I hear ya!! The continuing diatribes about how mankind is causing global warming has reached the levels of a religious Jihad... I can only suspect that folks like Gore will start illiciting the support of the eco-terrorists should we DARE to thwart his agenda.. ;0) But on the other hand, I DO believe we need to be focused on air pollution, which affects all of us which is why I advocate hydrogen as a fuel. But I recognize the costs of this are currently prohibitive until fuel cell technology advances to the state where they can be massed produced at the necessary levels. But Tar Sands, and other alternative fuel technologies are near and dear to my heart because they present the opportunity to secure our nation's energy needs from politically stable countries (as well as our own agricultural sector). And aside from the national security considerations, I find it delightfully ironic that companies are able to make money from actually CLEANING UP the oil from those tar sands. After all, isn't the fact that there are billions of barrels of oil "spilled" in this area by "Mother Nature" nothing more than a massive environmental rehabilitation project? It strikes me that mining the Tar Sands is one of the most environmentally friendly acts ever undertaken by the energy sector. Hawk