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: neolib who wrote (20525)	2/19/2008 8:00:55 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

That is not at all like turning incorrectly. It is like turning correctly if the reduction of the CO2 emissions causes great economic harm/cost, and turns out to be much less important in terms of climate than you thought it was. There is no "slow down" option here. Sure you can slow down how much CO2 you emit, but that only means your making specific decision, you aren't able to avoid making the decision and any one you make might be the wrong one. So its more like a turn (which can be wrong) than slowing down (which is very unlikely to be wrong)

To: neolib who wrote (20525)	2/19/2008 8:02:43 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36921

Neolib, you're seriously missing the point to all this obviously phony hype regarding Global Warming. French President Jacques Chirac said the UN's Kyoto Protocol represented "the first component of an authentic global governance." Today, the U.N, desires "A Global CO2 Tax,". A UN panel member urged the adoption of "a global burden sharing system" legally binding to all nations," to impose a tax on plant food (CO2). The bounty from this tax is projected to be $40 billion dollars a year. This windfall will go straight into the coffers of a UN controlled "Multilateral Adaptation Fund". If you cannot understand how creating a hugely funded U.N organization to effectively manage the globe, they you're either naive, near sided or blinded by religion. The U.N. is a major beneficiary of building fear and alignment toward the notion that Global Warming is real and man is responsible. 40 Billion dollars per year is a lot of incentive to manufacture research and silence contradictory opinions. Given an organization like the U.N. this kind of money, power and decision making authority is dangerous. Especially given the fact that many members of the U.N. represent dictatorial governments where corruption is rampant. Corruption at the U.N. is already insidiously and perpetually out of control. The last thing we need to do increase its influence and power. Leftist solutions would do just that.

To: neolib who wrote (20525)	2/19/2008 10:23:50 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

In the case of AGW, that means slowing CO2 production to the point where your model accuracy allows reaction time given the CO2 "speed" you are proceeding at. All well and good when you omit some of the fundamental science behind why CO2 levels might be rising.. (and it's not just because man is producing more of it). But in the scenario you're referring to, the standard is a moving target, ever diminishing as phytoplankton populations continue to decrease. With the recent demise of Planktos, it might serve you well to review some of their science explaining why phytoplankton levels have been decreasing for decades (correspondent with modern agricultural techniques): planktos.com The United Nations Environment Program has reported that China is now engaging in valuable and effective soil conservation practices meeting with much the same success as the US Soil Conservation Service. China has made great achievements in soil conservation in the past 50 years, bringing 780,000 square kilometers of soil erosion under control. The UNEP reports that in a recent 10 year period of conservation efforts, covering the 1980's erosion has been brought under control in 2 million hectares, a third of the total affected area. Improved land productivity doubled the total grain output in these areas. The second phase of the program, covering 1993-2002, aims to introduce higher quality and efficiency in crop production (NEPA, 1993). As a result of a serious effort by the Central Government of China, about 10% of the country’s desertified land has been rehabilitated in the last few decades and the deterioration of another 12 per cent has been halted in north China. About 444,000 hectares of severely degraded rangeland have been recovered and maintained. Up to 18.36 million hectares of land have been afforested by efforts aimed at combating desertification. Combating desertification has recently been listed in Chapter 16 of the Chinese Agenda 21, and was officially approved by the Central Government in April 1994. At this time China's soil conservation efforts are saving some billions of tons of soil per year from being lost. A significant portion of this dust would arrive in the worlds oceans especially the North Pacific. An important research topic for Planktos is to find out whether this apparent correlation between declining North Pacific Ocean productivity and the success of Chinese Soil conservation over matching time frames is coincidence or cause and effect. The following chart shows a remarkable correlation between success in growing soil protecting winter/spring wheat in China with decline in N. Pacific ocean productivity. (see chart in article) It's uncanny that the diminishment of the ocean's population of phytoplankton corresponds so closely with the increasing use of modern agricultural soil preservation techniques that prevent nourishing nutrient laden dust from being deposited in the oceans. Thus, if the levels of CO2 sequestering phytoplankton continue to diminish, the target you have to meet for reducing CO2 emissions INCREASES. This is the FUNDAMENTAL ERROR that GW scientists are omitting from their analysis. And now that Planktos, who made the scientific "faux pas" of trying to use science to engage in a profitable venture, has ceased operations, I wonder who will carry on this research? Who will have the power and authority to make sure that the GW community stop ignoring the OTHER SIDE of the GW equation; that of how diminishing phytoplankton populations are limiting the planet's ability to "sponge" up not only man-made CO2 emissions, but also NATURAL emissions. This really is a "no-brainer", IMO.. and it sickens me that few of the leading GW scientists wish to grapple with it when a layman, like myself, can recognize the implicit logic involved. Hawk