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 of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (3218)	11/30/2008 10:26:27 AM
From: miraje	2 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 86352

Why do you have to distort? Because that's how the game is played. You start with the self evident premise that pollution is bad. No one can argue with that. And now that real pollution (in the West, not in China or India or the 3rd world) is well under control (new cars are essentially pollution free, for example), you move on to the bogus assertion that carbon dioxide (a benign gas that's essential for life and indeed is plant food) is a "pollutant" responsible for "global warming" and "climate change" that cause fires and floods and drought and drowning baby polar bears, etc., etc., etc.. By convincing the ignorant populace (including some posters here) that CO2 is a real "pollutant", and labeling it as such with a constant drum beat in the mainstream media and (worse) in public schools, the true purpose of those advocating the greenie agenda becomes quite clear. Control. Implementing an even more statist command economy. Control carbon and you control almost every aspect of our civilization. It's going to take a substantial hit to our standard of living before the inevitable backlash occurs. We're all going to pay for this nonsense. And pay and pay and pay...

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (3218)	11/30/2008 10:56:42 AM
From: Eric	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86352

Bob Well we have both been lobbing grenades back and forth and that is stupid and a waste of time. When I was much younger I had virtually no interest in "Man's affect on the Environment". Now I do. As you know being a good scientist requires that you first become a good observer. Probably the highest requirement in the process of scientific discovery. The documentation of the physical world is getting better every day with the tools we now have at hand. Coring of the oceans sediments, large ice glaciers and tree rings for example have given us a massive resource to be able to study atmospheric change on a long time scale. I have seen that change in my lifetime in areas where I live due to man's impact. Can we make coal clean? I have not seen a process yet that really works. But the big problem with it in the end is the cost. I think it will fail because the alteratives are much cheaper to implement and maintain in the long run. Almost 40 years ago I was enamored with the possibility of fusion power while I was in physics classes in college. The professors thought it would be possible in about 20 years. That time came and went by, plus almost another 20 years and we have not even come close to achieving a sustained reaction. Meanwhile the earth is bathed in approximately 1 kw of energy per square meter.. Free. Provided by the sun. Bob If you feel man has no affect on the atmosphere so be it. We are all entitled to our "opinions". We all have rose colored glasses. regards

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (3218)	11/30/2008 12:07:38 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 86352

Bob, but you use the same scare tactics? You have made statements in the past that a move to non-fossil fuels will cripple our economy. That is a statement of opinion intended to scare people into immobility. What we've actually seen with the advent of new technology is the exact opposite. Old industries die, it is true, but the new replacement industries are typically more efficient, effective, and larger than the old industries and create more prosperity. So history teaches us that if we were to embark on an all out effort to replace our oil and coal industries with renewables, a likely outcome would be greater overall prosperity and more net jobs in th economy, even as the oil and coal industries and the jobs associated with them died off. So I agree let's not use scare tactics on either side of the debate.