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: Elmer Flugum who wrote (27771)	1/22/2010 1:51:21 PM
From: Murrey Walker	Respond to of 36917

Longer term, any changes to reduce pollution is a good thing for everyone. Agreed!

To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (27771)	1/26/2010 10:20:02 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

If CO2 was pollution, then worrying about it would be sensible. But CO2 is not a pollutant in any reasonable use of the word. CO2 like O2 and H2O are crucial ingredients for our lives. There is no reason to think that CO2 at 500ppm could remotely be considered a pollutant in the usual usage of the word. But it's possible that 500 ppm might be a significant issue if we believe the computer models which so far have failed to predict climate even over the last 10 years, let alone the next 100 or 200 which is how long it will take us to get CO2 to 500 ppm. The faster we fill the air with CO2, the faster it is stripped out. Like filling a leaky tank, the deeper it gets, the faster it leaks out. The Gulf Stream alone is sending vast amounts of CO2 to the ocean depths, not to return to the surface for centuries. Plants are gobbling CO2 and loving it - the more there is, the better they like it. Plants got going when air had 2000 ppm and much of plant history was over 1000 ppm and farmers buy hydrocarbons and burn it to fill their glass houses with CO2 and warmth. The big mistake that global warmists make is to think that Earth was in balance. It was not and never has been. They even use the expression "Earth in the Balance". Ecological processes have been stripping CO2 for hundreds of millions of years, burying it permanently as limestone, oil, coal, gas, shale and tars. Stupendously huge quantities have been buried. That's why we are able to recover a small amount of it to provide energy. Let's see what happens after Peak People in 2037 before we panic. Also, let's see what technological and cultural paradigm shifts happen over the next 50 years. While a pickup truck might win a Massachusetts election, trucks, SUVs, airliners and heating are not essential ingredients or even desirable attributes of human life. They have served a function, as did horse shoes and horses, but the streets are no longer lined with hitching rails and horse poop. Cyberspace is just getting going. Contraception has been working wonders for half a century and the decline in children per woman continue to plummet around the world. If there is a CO2 problem in half a century or a century from now, then it's easily fixed with a 20% energy penalty which is not going to be a problem - that's without even assuming new technologies reducing energy requirements per GDP per capita. No worries. The greatest problem is the old one of bossy people trying to get control of hordes of others for their personal gain. The loot flowing to the warmists is huge and they aim for mega$billions. It's cash and power and they want it. Lots of it. As always, they'll lie and create false beliefs if they can get away with it to achieve their aims. Being a Moonie appealed to a lot of people and being a Warmist is similar to being a Moonie. A bung computer model and false temperature data [concealed] is not science. Mqurice