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 : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maceng2 who wrote (19274)	12/29/2007 4:48:14 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

PB, apart from the fact that whether somebody is a scientist or not is irrelevant to what they present [what matters is the information and reasoning], if you check out the detail, this bloke looks like a registered scientist. cato.org Neither he nor the mathematically literate economist can reasonably be called "doofus". It's quite lame how you, Wharfie and Neo seem to think that calling names and denigrating qualifications is somehow a valuable argument. On the contrary, it has always been my experience that when people focus on name-calling and ignoring the arguments, they do so because they are intellectually incapable or lack any arguments. Do you seriously think that Cato bloke is a doofus? "The Environmentalist Thread" doesn't seem to have any "environmentalists" capable of arguing cases using data and reasoning rather than personal insults. The CO2 doomsters seem to have a religious fixation on the problem of whether CO2 is a problem or not and what should be done if anything. I'm indifferent and it's neither here nor there to me if there really is a problem shown to exist. I don't "lose" if I decide there is a problem after all. It's as though the doomsters see it as their ego on the line. It's just data and nature in action. There's no need to be emotionally invested. From what I've read so far, I think there's not a problem. I have read a LOT about CO2 over the last quarter century. It's not as though I'm "anti-environment". I was an environmentalist when I was a child and always have been and still am. That doesn't mean any wonky idea that somebody claiming to be "Green" alleges is a problem has to have me onside like some acolyte of Papal Infallibility. In case there is a problem, 25 years ago I came up with the obvious solution [replace other taxes with a carbon tax and preferably cut other taxes even more] and 20 years ago came up with a technical solution [liquid CO2 under the ocean]. The main solution will be Peak People and technological change [and cultural change]. When there are half as many people as now and they don't need much fuel, there won't be much CO2 produced, especially if there are carbon taxes [on emissions]. Mqurice