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 (21403)	5/1/2008 10:42:35 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

There's no cult claiming infinite oil: <no more then the religion of "infinite oil". > Listening to the public and their leaders about the Greenhouse Effect, Global Warming, Climate Change, CO2 etc, it is very cult-like. Already we have the "Deniers" language being used, which is a synonym for "Heretics". There is talk of punishing "Deniers", making it illegal to be a "Denier" etc, just as in normal cults. If you include Orinoco and Canadian heavy stuff as "oil" then it's vast as far as anyone alive today is concerned, at current oil prices. If you include shale and coal as "oil" then there's an awful lot of the stuff to be burned. I haven't studied "Peak Oil" theory and nomenclature in detail, but I use oil to mean as per BP's statistical review of world energy usage of the word oil, which doesn't [I think] include Orinoco or Athabasca bituminous goop. My estimate of the year of Peak Oil using BP's definitions, is 2037, along with Peak People. Mqurice

To: maceng2 who wrote (21403)	5/1/2008 11:19:21 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 36917

Not really: <You also have to be of a particularly stubborn frame of mind to insist vapourizing (burning) that amount of fuel (on a world wide scale) isn't going to effect the climate. Considering world wide consumption of fuel, including coal, it would be most unlikely that climate would not be effected over several decades imho.> When you consider the amount of CO2 in the air, it's measured in parts per million. That's more than homeopathic, but it hasn't reduced Olympic records yet. China's particulate and carbon monoxide emissions are more likely to be problematic in that regard. Plants certainly appreciate the extra dietary input they have been given over the decades and are feasting accordingly. They had been reduced to starvation rations by Gaia over eons as their carbon supplies have been buried in stupendously vast graveyards of limestone, coal, shale, Orinoco and other types. All that people are doing is returning a minuscule fraction in a recycling effort to an unsustainable Gaia process of carbon stripping. After a century of dedicated effort at huge cost, people have only raised CO2 levels by 100 ppm, give or take a bit. We are still not up to 400 ppm. The atmosphere has other components such as nitrogen at 800,000, oxygen at 200,000, other bits and pieces and don't forget that wet stuff which is normally present in amounts more than 400 ppm and sometimes it comes bucketing down there's so much of it. People put up umbrellas to hide under, build big pipes, dams and canals to try to avoid flooding: engr.colostate.edu The wet stuff has a significant effect on climate and when gathered in quantity around one's feet can even involve people in being drowned. The Greenhouse Effect doomsters have apparently now discovered that water has an effect of significant proportions, not just in cloud formations either. Have you heard of CO2 flood warnings? Has anyone drowned in atmospheric CO2? The human share of that 400 ppm is only about 100 of it. We really are getting into fine details. Let's watch sunspot cycle 23 for more fun than you will get from another 20 ppm of CO2. Mqurice

To: maceng2 who wrote (21403)	5/2/2008 3:11:33 AM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

OK Pearly, you wanted an Ayn Rand quote and now you've got one. "Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."