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: Wharf Rat who wrote (31503)	1/3/2011 11:47:03 AM
From: HPilot	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 36917

1) Tyndall proposed CO2 and other gases absorb heat, & proved it. 2) Arrhenius proposed global warming, first calculated CO2 sensitivity, which is still being refined. 3)Reville and Keeling started measuring the increase in CO2 proposed in 2. 4) Everybody else starts measuring temperature increases everywhere, from deep ocean to the upper atmosphere, consistent with 1, 2, 3. But they forgot to tell you that CO2 is but 0.038% of the total atmosphere, thus insignificant.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (31503)	1/4/2011 3:26:43 AM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Yes Wharfie, there was a theoretical risk and that's why I was on the CO2 case back in the early 1980s, proposing a carbon tax solution to my boss who hushed me up. I wasn't advocating it then, just saying that if CO2 is a problem, it would easily be solved by simply shifting taxation from income to carbon. It wouldn't even require global co-operation with expensive silly jamborees at Cancun, Copenhagen and Kyoto. A country with no income tax would find swarms of people wanting to live there and operate businesses there. Their GDP would boom. Their carbon dioxide production per GDP per capita would plunge. Other countries would rapidly copy. As we have observed regarding item 4, the effect of CO2 we are trying to detect is akin to detecting the ripples from a pebble tossed into the Gulf of Mexico as a category 5 hurricane passes by. While the number of CO2 molecules instead of O2 molecules makes a little difference, we have now established that it doesn't make a big difference at the homeopathic levels we have achieved. It's like looking for brain cancer caused by using cellphones. There's a theoretical risk, but detecting the harm compared with the onslaught from all other large scale effects is very difficult. You are confused about what is being called a religion. It isn't science. Science has been my belief system since I was conscious. What is called religion is Mann Made Warming and anti-Popperist "everything proves the theory" thinking, data hiding and deleting, and all the other crimes against science which have been amply demonstrated by the flim flam self-dealing conmen led by international criminals such as David Suzuki, Al Gore, the Mann himself and Evil-Doing self-dealing "hide the decline" Phil Jones. Those barbarians are not scientists. Mqurice