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: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (30759)	10/7/2010 3:25:21 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

It was only about a decade ago that I realized Global Warming was a political, not a scientific issue. I don't mean what should be done about it, which is of course a political issue. I mean the actual belief about whether CO2 emissions were causing a Greenhouse Effect, and perhaps also whether CO2 emissions were a good or bad thing. More plant growth is generally considered a good thing. Holding a reglaciation at bay would also be considered a good thing by most people, though not land sellers in the Sahara or Outback Australia. 26 years ago, I told my boss at BP Oil that if CO2 turns out to be a problem, a carbon tax would soon sort it out. I also invented a way to liquefy CO2 from power stations, collect waste heat, and pipe it 400 metres under the ocean and store it in liquid phase in lakes on the bottom, to gradually dissolve into the ocean. Mitsubishi patented the idea a few years later. Now I realize that's unnecessary because the amount of CO2 subducted by the Gulf Stream is enormous. After Peak People and with continuing technological improvements to save money by avoiding fuel burning [people want more efficient vehicles to save money and better insulation to cut their utility bills] and with competing energy sources such as photovoltaics, crops, wind, nuclear and geothermal, CO2 in the air will reduce. CO2 in the air should get to 450 parts per million but it will probably not get to 500 ppm. Given the lack of warming having gone from 280 to 380 ppm, which was also during the continued recovery from the Little Ice Age, another 100 ppm seems unlikely to effect much change. The first thing to do in regard to the purported Greenhouse Effect is to see if there actually is objective data which demonstrates that the theory is correct. So far, that data is pretty thin on the ground and they "hide the decline" delete emails, refuse to supply data, and otherwise behave in contrary ways to the edicts of real scientists like Karl Popper, Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman. Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, and Michael Mann are not scientists' little fingers. They are to real scientists as a weekend with a prostitute is to marriage with children. Science gets a bad name by allowing the likes of Jones, Briffa and Mann and the climate change scamsters like Al Gore and David Suzuki to get away with it. Al Gore and his sex poodle second chakra are not science, even though he won a Nobel Prize, which says something about that prize. They even awarded Barack Obama a Nobel Prize for having a melanin-rich Kenyan father and becoming President of the USA, not for actually having done something. Al Gore's second chakra looks more like a weekend with a prostitute than Einstein/Popper/Feynman science. Einstein - it takes not 1000 scientists to prove me right, just 1 to prove me wrong. Popper - falsifiability is the test of a theory. Feynman - ALL of the data matters. Mqurice