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 (23032)	9/25/2007 4:26:05 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 218197

Moom, I don't see why we should adopt the idea that increasing CO2 is a bad thing if we don't base that idea on the premise that it was better when it was at 300 ppm. <I don't assume any of that, quite the contrary. > Why is 300 ppm good and 500 ppm bad? I can see reasons why 500 ppm is good, and I can see that a return to glaciation would be very, very bad indeed. If Greenhouse Effect doomsters are right, then we are avoiding the risk of glaciation by keeping CO2 levels up. I agree that if CO2 just carried on up to 1000 ppm and 1500 ppm then I'd be thinking we should figure out what that means. But 500 ppm? The human population will have reduced and all sorts of dramas will have been before that. Here are some good things about 500 ppm CO2 1 Northwest passage open and maybe around the north of Russia [at least during end of summer months]. 2 Crops grow like crazy which is a good thing. Warmer - my usual problem is staying warm, not staying cool. 3 No ice age burying civilisation in kilometres of snow. 4 Fish thrive [plants in the ocean need CO2 too and fish eat plants] and I like eating fish. 5 Oil exploration gets easier 6 Huge tracts of Russia and Canada go from snow to life. Note that land is mostly in the northern hemisphere and lots is up in the cold part. 7 Polar bears go extinct [save the seals!] = just kidding because grizzly bears will take over and they get hungry too. Polar bears are just grizzly bears without the melanin [sort of]. The assumption seems to be that if people do it, it's bad. The precautionary principle doesn't mean "nature is looking out for us". It means don't mess with things that are working well if you don't know what the effects will be [or have a pretty good idea]. We do know that Earth has been way over 1000 ppm and life was good. Not all that long ago either. We do know that glaciation is bad and that was very recent. Earth is NOT working well for humans. Gaia is on a suicide mission. Mqurice