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: Steve Lokness who wrote (210445)	7/2/2007 5:32:56 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793958

Why do you want more of that instead of what the future offers if we use our brain and ambitious creativity? I don't want what we do to be controlled by you and your crew's "Commanding Heights" central planning. Because, when we strip all your verbiage away, that is the inescapable outcome. This whole "Global Warming" argument was picked up and funded by the left to give them back the control they lost when Socialism went down the Soviet Empire's bung-hole. If your guys can sell this "Green" approach to our economy, they believe they will end up back in control of things. The one thing they can't live with is the "invisible hand." Uncontrolled economic growth just scares the hell out of your crowd.

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (210445)	7/2/2007 7:50:57 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793958

Steve, I was doing all that, every day, and paid well to do it and was successful at it, along with swarms of others doing it, but not the global warming part. < It is I that has been saying benefit from it, get rich from it. Let the world be a better place because of addressing global warming by getting away from our dependence on wacko nut job countries. It is I who is arguing that by using cleaner energy sources we will have a better place to live. The obvious to my suggestions is to accept the past as the future; more dependence on Iran, Russia, Venezuela and Nigeria for our oil. More polluting cars on roads that are already so choking with congestion that our children are plagued by allergies and asthma. Why do you want more of that instead of what the future offers if we use our brain and ambitious creativity?> First, you accept that CO2 is a problem. The trend could lead to a problem, but it is not a problem. Of course even a move from 300 ppm to 380ppm makes plants and other things adapt. But adapting isn't a "problem". CO2 is not a problem. So far, it has been a solution - making plants breathe easier, use less water and increase production. Those are good things, unless water run-off causes flooding. We can't keep CO2 the same, because there is always natural variation, including that as winter comes and goes. Way back in the 1980s, one of the things I wondered was whether freezing CO2 in mountains nearby power stations with insulation to slow the evaporation rate would be a good thing or whether my patented idea of pouring it down a pipe as a liquid to the bottom of the ocean [more than 400 metres being needed to keep it liquid] would be better. The liquid could be put back up into the atmosphere if an ice-age loomed, using it to blanket Earth and warm us up. There wasn't a problem looming that made the idea economic, in my opinion. Since the greater threat is Ice Age than Greenhouse Effect, it seems a much better idea to me to just put the CO2 in the air where it does good things, thereby avoiding the return to glaciation. Snow cover happens quickly and in Mq's theory on glaciation, it happens in 3 years. That is NOT long for places buried in snow to adapt. The Greenhouse Effect doomsters talk of a century for problems to arrive, in the form of half a metre of sea level rise [which is effectively zero - the slightest tsunami does worse than that], a slightly elevated temperature and crop growth management - some places will be unsuitable for some crops. A century is more or less forever in human terms. Anything more than 30 years we can pretty much ignore. Returns on investment are required in 5 and 10 years, not 30 years. 20 years for some things. Certainly not 100 years other than for a few things. More cars are better. Cars are the transport solution. Mass transport is not. What's needed is better cars. Herding mobs onto buses and trains is a bad thing. It is grossly inefficient other than in a few places. Allergies and asthma have got nothing to do with cars and congestion of roads. That is simply untrue and I'm surprised you'd say it. Cars need redesign to Mq's design. The process is underway. The roads can handle huge numbers of cars, and do it vastly faster and cheaper than now. You should look to science, engineering and pricing. Not 19th century answers. If you are not afraid of science, why don't you want more cars on the road? You mention asthma and allergy as the reasons. You are obviously not thinking in scientific, engineering or pricing terms. More cars don't mean more allergies and asthma. What link are you thinking there is between the two. Mq solved it all decades ago. We are just waiting for economics and engineering to catch up. There's no rush. CO2 isn't a problem, it's a solution. Mqurice