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: Sam who wrote (8871)	6/3/2009 6:49:10 AM
From: Bearcatbob	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

"The biggest difference between us, Hawk, is that I think that climate change is a real threat to human civilization. " Sam - the biggest difference between us that you guys live in a fantasy world of what it takes to move from one means of energy supply to another. You guys (I want to use the word fools but I won't) think by shutting off one the other will magically appear by legislative fiat. You guys have no concept of what the hardware requirement is for your dream.

To: Sam who wrote (8871)	6/3/2009 12:26:40 PM
From: Hawkmoon	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86356

The biggest difference between us, Hawk, is that I think that climate change is a real threat to human civilization. So I'm not bothered by the "obstacles" to exploiting fossil fuel resources. It hasn't been a "real threat" to humanity for the past 5000 years, during which time the oceans have risen 50 feet and buried entire coastal cities. I think the real threat is people, like yourself, who can't see the forest for the trees with regard to climate change. You think you're more powerful than "mother nature" and that kind of hubris is frightening. Furthermore, your ilk can't even recognize that decreasing phytoplankton levels are quite likely the reason that CO2 levels might have risen. All you see is what's being added, without focusing on the botanical systems that should be THRIVING on additional CO2 and sequestering it as they done throughout the history of the paleoclimatic record. If you have a 30% decrease in Phytoplankton, then it's pretty obvious that atmospheric CO2 levels are going to rise. And consequently we'd see evidence of DECREASING OXYGEN levels: www2.chinadaily.com.cn blogcritics.org nowpublic.com Your ilk can't seem to get it through your heads that you can't just look at one factor in isolation. Nature is a complex system, constantly variable and in a state of flux. Looking at CO2 increases without looking at O2 decreases causes you to ignore the obvious; namely that we'll seeing a dramatic reduction in botanical life, primarily oceanic, and it's impacting the atmospheric balances of gases. Hawk