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: Archie Meeties who wrote (6976)	4/7/2009 12:52:07 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

You think it's ok reasoning to do comparisons of atmosphere content between recent and times when the atmosphere was too toxic to sustain life? Too toxic? My god man!! There were lifeforms living at that time that were far more diverse, as well as FAR GREATER in size than anything living today. And they ruled on this planet for millions of years. dinosaurfact.net But the point of the discussion is the fallacy that somehow mankind is harming the planet with CO2 emissions when the reality shows that CO2 levels were FAR HIGHER long before the advent of mankind. Current CO2 amounts are at levels that haven't been seen since the end of the Paleozoic Era, which ended with the Permian and Carboniferous periods. Hawk

To: Archie Meeties who wrote (6976)	4/7/2009 1:53:22 AM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	1 Recommendation Respond to of 86356

Arch, Hawk has a point about the carbon sequestration period. There was a lot of life, not just plants but insects and the precursors to the dinosaurs. There was some pretty diverse life. The sequestration certainly abetted terrestrial life though as huge ice caps formed (not good for a lot of marine life which vanished as a result). I used the same argument when I used to talk about this stuff. There are plenty of links to the fossil record out there on the web and life etc at the time.. This is pretty standard fare. users.rcn.com I only posted on this because I found to of my peoplemarks arguing, not looking to get into this debate again.. :O) TBS EDIT: I have no idea what those atmospheric C levels would be like for us.. probably not good if it happened overnight but I do not know. EDIT: OK I thought it was worth onowing: At 1% concentration of carbon dioxide CO2 (10,000 parts per million or ppm) and under continuous exposure at that level, such as in an auditorium filled with occupants and poor fresh air ventilation, some occupants are likely to feel drowsy. inspect-ny.com

To: Archie Meeties who wrote (6976)	4/7/2009 1:41:53 PM
From: RetiredNow	Respond to of 86356

LOL. Yes, what I don't get about these folks is that they think it's ok for the Earth to get to levels of CO2 within which humans can't live. Wouldn't we humans want to try to do something about that? It would seem silly not to try. Hawking was right. In the face of human inertia, it is necessary for us to travel to other planets to ensure the longevity of the human race. With the amount of intransigence or downright hostility to changing the status quo on the Earth, it's a wonder we make any advancements at all.