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 (22539)	7/29/2008 5:16:19 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 36921

PB, I've been an environmentalist for over 50 years, but that doesn't mean I believe every crackpot theory which gets the imprimatur of environmentalist "leaders": <No amount of evidence will ever convince these idiots that the crap we put into the air can change the climate. Which it has btw.> I have watched the CO2 emissions discussions for over quarter of a century, being well-paid for some of those years to do so. If there is a problem, the carbon tax solution I propounded in 1984 would solve the problem. So far, I have been unable to detect a problem. On the contrary, as per my theory on the business of the late 1980s, I consider CO2 emissions a good thing. When you write things like "these idiots that the crap we put into the air" .... I think you are not in the slightest persuasive. On the contrary. CO2 is NOT a pollutant, no matter what you claim. CO2 is an essential ingredient in the atmosphere and was at all-time low levels before humans started increasing it. CO2 is the foundation of life. No CO2 in the air means no life on Earth. To call it "crap in the air" is silly. It's like Vitamin C in our bodies. Yes, too much might be a problem, but it has to be a LOT to get a problem. Too little is death by scurvy. There is a range of Vitamin C which is good to have. It's the same with many things in life. Food is good. Too much is bad. None is death. Too call food a pollutant is silly. It looks as though the effect of CO2 up to 450 parts per million isn't going to have a significant effect on the climate, let alone a problematic one for a significant number of people. Many of us would benefit from a warmer climate. By looking at the record over a billion years, it seems to me that 1000 ppm would be okay. 1500 ppm might cause the temperature to do a rise as it has done before. Because changes due to warming take place over decades and centuries, any problems are trivial. If sea levels rise even 10 metres, which isn't possible according to the doomsters, that would just mean moving uphill somewhat. That's no big deal over 200 years or even 100 years. I could move in a few weeks [not that I have to as I avoid living at sea level to avoid tsunamis, not to avoid warming water]. CO2 in the air is a good thing. We need more of it. It grows crops better, cuts their water need, prevents the ice age returning [hopefully] and might even raise temperatures a bit if we are lucky. CO2 is not a pollutant. I used to sell fuel to greenhouse farmers to burn so that their greenhouses would have more heat and more CO2. If they can get the CO2 and warmth for no charge, they'd like that. Mqurice

To: maceng2 who wrote (22539)	7/30/2008 12:43:50 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

Ayn Rand quotes: The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. It is futile to fight against, if one does not know what one is fighting for. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power 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. Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals -- that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government -- that it is not a charter _for_ government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection _against_ the government. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion - when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you - when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - you may know that your society is doomed. Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgement and nothing can help you escape it -- that no substitute can do your thinking, as no pinch-hitter can live your life. Volumes can be and have been written about the issue of freedom versus dictatorship, but, in essence, it comes down to a single question: do you consider it moral to treat men as sacrificial animals and to rule them by physical force? I swear by my life, and love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others. The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. The difference between a welfare state and a totalitarian state is a matter of time. 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 nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers. Do you think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power the 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. There is nothing to take a man's freedom away from him, save other men. To be free, a man must be free of his brothers. Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel. The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights... quotes.liberty-tree.ca

To: maceng2 who wrote (22539)	7/30/2008 4:38:14 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

Dear pearly plus one, you posts conveys an implicit stupidity or religious zeal of the deepest ignorance. Or do you make a statement in such a way as to have deniability and yet provoke? This is what is reported. Two sets of data, from satellites, go back to 1979: one produced by Dr Roy Spencer, formerly of Nasa, now at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, the other by Remote Sensing Systems. Their figures correspond closely with those produced by the Hadley Centre for Climate Studies of our own Met Office, based on global surface temperature readings. The facts show that for about the last decade global temperatures peaked in 1998, leveled and have more recently turned down. Do you believe what is reported? The fact reported does fly in the face of the expectation of CO2 having some property to drive global temperatures to dire heights. And it is consistent with all know science that interprets CO2 as trace gas has only a trace effect. You seem to believe that 1 part in 10,000 of CO2 some of which can be attributed to mans use of energy will have a major dire effect of pumping up the global temperature. The is no property of CO2 that can do this in an atmosphere where 3 plus parts in 10,000 is natural and the far stronger greenhouse gas H20 varies in ranges from 100 to 300 parts per 10,000 over 80 to 90% of the planet all the time. The real denier of reality, the truly delusional really believes statements like yours quoted below with a reasonable interpretation of what is means to say. "In this case it's a crowd of global warming deniers deluding themselves. No amount of evidence will ever convince these idiots that the crap we put into the air can change the climate. Which it has btw." One way I find for me to get a better understanding of what I believe is to discuss ideas with the deniers of reality, and the truly delusional.