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: Moominoid who wrote (22042)	9/6/2007 3:22:35 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218145

The ice cap that's significant in the northern hemisphere is that on Greenland. It's significant, but not a big deal. The one on Antarctica is getting deeper if not wider right now though perhaps it is. So far, the CO2 we have produced has been good. I guess that if we got to 1500 ppm, there might be some significant changes, some of which would be annoying in some situations. But there's no chance of that. Natural ecosystems can move. They have done it for a billion years, inventing lots of techniques for staying alive and making another bunch of babies. They morph all over the place. Sure, the blue-tipped spotted dotterell might die out, but there are lots of godwits, sparrows and other birds that won't mind at all that there's a bit less competition for food and nesting rights. There aren't many dinosaurs left, but it's quite pleasant not having a brontosaurus stomping over the lettuce crops and tyrannosaurus rex chomping my children. Good riddance. There are lots of species I'd eliminate if I could. For a start, mosquitoes, white pointer sharks, fleas, smallpox, AIDS, cervical cancer virus, young thugs [and old ones] can all go to hell as far as I'm concerned. If their genes never see the light of day again, that would be fine by me. So we agree that there is an upper bound to what's a good level of CO2 and a lower one. The question is what's the right level. So far, the Greenhouse Effect religionist answer is "Whatever nature does, without the influence of humans". I disagree that nature should decide things for me. Nature is a mindless suicidal monster than needs to be subdued and turned to my benefit. I like to have a house to keep nature OUTSIDE, though I will let in well-behaved pot plants and visitors. I wear clothes to keep nature AWAY from my body. Most people CHOOSE to live in cities, where there is nothing natural in their lives. Even the green parts are manicured parks, where plants are often genetic variations on the original "natural" variety. Few plants are self-sown. Weeds constantly encroach in war against people. But we now have lethal sprays to keep them at bay. Even the sky is criss crossed by contrails and in Beijing, the sun sets high in the sky [about 30 degrees] behind the murk of pollution. It is there in "blue" sky, then just gradually goes deep red and disappears. It isn't night time, just sun set. Most places where there is a lot of nature, people avoid like the plague, which is also very natural and I would extinguish. Down with nature!! Hooray for humans. Mqurice