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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Salt'n'Peppa who wrote (156479)	9/5/2011 8:57:33 AM
From: Bearcatbob	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206085

OT: Labor Day A good topic for Labor Day could be how to promote more labor in the US of A. Ideas? Cool rainy day here - bummer - wish we could some of this to Texas.

To: Salt'n'Peppa who wrote (156479)	9/5/2011 1:26:20 PM
From: Webster Groves	9 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206085

OT for Labor Day .... There is a CO2 monitoring station on the side of Mauna Loa up near the top. It has been there a long time. The reason for the location is that it is more or less out in the middle of the Pacific ocean far away from the majority of the human population. The Kiluea lava flow is to the southeast of Mauna Loa and the prevailing winds from west to east, so there is not a problem here. The Mauna Loa station was established before the latest Kiluea eruption cycle stated in the 1980's. All this talk of scientists inflaming the population with thoughts of doom is for their own financial benefit is absurd. These guys and gals are paid academic salary rates and have no access to really big bucks regardless of what they do. Also the number of scientists involved in climate studies is (my guess) fewer than the number of software programmers working on cell phone aps. They just don't have a large enough constituency to have the political influence you claim. Political influence requires big bucks and that means corporate sponsors. Doesn't exist in climate studies. As a counter example consider the Homeland Security market. Lots of big bucks here selling fear of the type you mention. Lots of companies in the biz, too. The big problem for acceptance of climate change seems to be the perceived economic impact of the consequences, and whether mitigation is possible or even desirable. I myself so no harm in a doubling in atmospheric CO2 in the next 10,000 years. The oceans will adjust and the ecology will rebalance. I do see a problem in a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 in the next 100 years, however. Too much too soon. People in coastal areas, especially in the Indian subcontinent will have to move or drown. Where will they go ? Who wants a five hundred million people moving into their space. Lots of political problems here. To the rescue come the opportunists. They say buy my carbon credits (I print them myself) and the world will be saved. This self-serving garbage passes as creative thought these days. Just the fast buck crowd. You say you need more data, and at the same time you don't like the data you see. You talk of climate change as a fad, and toss out atmospheric ozone as an example of a previous fad. I'll accept your analogy and point out a simple fact. As a consequence of "the ozone" scare" of the 1980s, governments passed regulations on the use of chlorofluorocarbons in the mid 1980's. The result, measurements by atmospheric scientists (many the same folks you put down here) now show improvement in ozone concentrations in the upper atmosphere. Check out the charts a the bottom of this site: theozonehole.com Science works. wg

To: Salt'n'Peppa who wrote (156479)	9/5/2011 1:38:40 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206085

<True environmentalists seek real-world solutions. They propose a compromise, a way to lessen the human imprint on the Earth, not stamp it out altogether. These are the people I believe in.> I agree. It is true, many in the environmental movement are True Believers, who oppose any compromise, and advocate plans without any regard to economics. Some are nihilists, who consider Homo Sapiens to be a cancer in Gaia's sacred body. Every movement, of the Right or Left, has people like that. Their extremism can be used to try to discredit the entire movement. And everyone, you and me included, picks a frame to show the picture we want and expect to see. That's just human.

To: Salt'n'Peppa who wrote (156479)	9/7/2011 12:28:24 AM
From: Archie Meeties	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206085

SnP, You are correct that co2 levels have been higher than current levels in the past. They've been high enough to be incompatible with sentient life at times. The rate of change in co2 is unprecedented however, suggesting that the natural carbon sinks are not adapting as quickly as they need to. Rising ocean levels will eventually inundate low lying coastal plains. This will sink carbon into reefs and lower co2, but that takes time. We will also eventually run out or stop using carbon based sources of energy, but not quickly. Part of the debate is how willing are we to let these processes happen? Relocating Houston into a drought stricken Texas (both predicted by climate models) to make room for new coral reefs will cause a huge financial problem. But not for me, and not likely for my children. Like the national debt, we can just pass these issues on. Let the good times roll! http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.html ncdc.noaa.gov