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: miraje who wrote (3219)	11/30/2008 11:31:01 AM
From: Bearcatbob	Respond to of 86352

Amen!

To: miraje who wrote (3219)	11/30/2008 4:11:48 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86352

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.. No one who knows anything says that CO2 is a "pollutant." No one denies that it is essential to life. But no one who knows anything would say that it is simply "benign." Too much of it in the atmosphere, and the planet will warm up. It isn't a conspiracy to say this. It is simple physics, established experimentally back in 1859. Without GHGs (including water vapor and methane in addition to CO2 as the most important ones), the earth would be at least 60 degrees or so cooler than it is. Life would plausibly still exist, but would be very different than it is. Over at least the past 400,000 years (and probably the last 2 million years or so), the level of carbon dioxide has varied between about 190 and 280 ppm. It is now over 385, and will go over 390 ppm in the next year or two. Now, you can argue that 390 doesn't pose a threat, and that it hasn't been firmly established what a level of 400 will mean to climate, but you cannot argue that it won't mean any warming at all from where we are at today and still be respectful of scientific findings. You need to study more. I suggest you start with this essay: aip.org And move on to others on the AIP site. It gives a scientifically solid account of how we have come to our current understanding of climate, and where we are now.

To: miraje who wrote (3219)	11/30/2008 4:33:02 PM
From: RetiredNow	Respond to of 86352

James, your post is simply not factual. Did you know that the air we breathe is a combination of nitrogen and oxygen with a very small component of CO2? We can breathe that mix within certain tolerances, but if the mix exceeded those tolerances it would not support life as we know it. In addition, NO2 and CO2, among other gases in large quantities, can lead to acid rain and the brown clouds we see over large cities with heavy industrial output and a large amount of cars on the roads. It is well documented that the brown cloud you see leads to respiratory problems such as increased incidences of asthma, allergies, and respiratory related deaths. So is CO2 a pollutant? In reasonable tolerances, no, but in large concentrations within our air supply, yes. It's like everything in life. Anything in large enough quantities can be harmful.