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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (254255)	6/13/2008 11:55:58 AM
From: miraje	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793708

My mission, in what is left of a long and exciting lifetime, is to stamp out this Global Warming silliness and let all of us get on with enjoying our lives and loving our planet, Earth. youtube.com

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (254255)	6/13/2008 1:28:34 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793708

Climate Change and the Oil Crisis By Dan \| June 12, 2008 hingeoffate.com The oil crisis is a frequent topic on this blog, today I want to go into the major reason behind the crisis. The global warming myth is the primary reason that we are paying $4 a gallon for gasoline and soon will be paying as much as $6 or $7. If it were not for the fear of Global Warming Democrats in congress would not be refusing to open up America’s domestic oil reserves. We currently have up to a trillion barrels of oil that are off limit to exploration. Global warming alarmist have been fighting to prevent energy exploration since the mid the 70’s. They succeeded in preventing drilling in ANWR, which would not harm the caribou, and they have prevented exploration on the continental self outside of the gulf of Mexico. Now, when we need more energy urgently, the global warming alarmists have sold the Democrats on the idea that drilling for oil is not the solution. Instead, they want us to develop alternative energy sources. This is a noble idea and is something that we must do in the long-run but we are not going to run of oil in the near term. At current consumption rates we have over 100 years of usable oil left and much more that we do not have the technology to use at this point. Since there is plenty of oil out there the only reason for the current high prices is global warming alarmism. They contend that we are destroying the planet by fossil fuels. They claim that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” and that our emission are going to cause a runaway greenhouse effect. In fact there is very little evidence that we are having an impact on global CO2 levels. CO2 has been on the rise for thousands of years and unless the global warming alarmists believe that ancient man’s campfires produced as much CO2 as our cars and power plants, we had nothing to do with it. There is also evidence that the CO2 levels rise as the temperature rises and go down as the temperature declines. There is evidence that the oceans act as a natural CO2 sink, releasing CO2 as the temperature rises and absorbing it as the temperature drops. No one argues that high CO2 levels are bad for plant life. In fact some global warming alarmists are using CO2 emissions as fertilizer to grow tomatoes and algae in an attempt to clean the atmosphere. In short, we are being sold a faulty bill of goods. Our country is held hostage by the OPEC nations because our leaders have bought into a hoax. They are refusing to let us explore for more energy, instead they want us to subsidize alternative energy sources that are not economically viable.

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (254255)	6/13/2008 1:34:58 PM
From: skinowski	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793708

Bjorn Lomberg is the guy Gore should be afraid of most. He doesn't argue with the contention that global warming exists (even though he finds that its effects tend to be grossly exaggerated). His main point is that Kyoto and other such rip-off "remedies" represent a waste and misallocation of means. youtube.com I read his book, it's pretty good.

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (254255)	6/13/2008 9:09:32 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793708

Hey Geoff!! That's a great article and I found it interesting about all of those scientists being willing to speak out and take a stand on GW and CO2. I'm an agnostic about the whole issue of GW. I personally believe most of it is driven by solar cycles, and if the evidence being presented is correct, we may be on the edge of another mini-ice age within 20 years. But I certainly want to see a cleaner environment, and I think there's a scientific argument to be made against unlocking all of that CO2 that sequestered in oil deposits by burning it as fuel. I think the greater argument to be made is that there is a national security issue at stake with regard to securing our country's energy requirements. It creates serious political and economic risk, and puts us in a situation where we're vulnerable to global "resource wars" as deposits of crude and NG become more difficult to locate. And having so much of our GDP being put into the pockets of despotic and unreliable allies gives them untoward leverage and influence in our national policies. I would rather see us promote democratic reforms, rather than sully ourselves propping up authoritarian/totalitarian regimes in order to secure global energy supplies. But none of that has anything to do with GW.. And nor do I think that all of this rhetoric about GW really has anything to do with higher fuel prices. If anything, alternative energy helps to release some of those price pressures in oil markets, although merely transferring the costs (in the case of Ethanol) to global food commodities. What we truly need is a national energy strategy aimed at creating technologies that make us independent of foreign energy, and has a "closed-circuit" with regard to environmental costs. I'm not quite sure how we're going to get there, but I think we have the scientific and economic resources to make it happen if we so desire. Maybe it's expansion of nuke plants to provide electricity for converting water to hydrogen on a mass level (Hydrogen can be burnt in existing engines with a few modifications and has no environmental impact). Maybe it's algae based biofuels, but that technology still remains to be proven cost effective on a massive scale required. Maybe it will involve the use of wave power and increased use of Solar.. I reallly don't know.. I think it will be all of these things will be a part of the solution. But I firmly believe it must be driven by the market. So while I'm going to feel the pain at the pump, I also think maybe it's a necessary pain that will provide an eventual cure. Hawk