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.

Technology Stocks : George Gilder - Forbes ASAP -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (1045)	3/16/1999 11:50:00 AM
From: Craig Wilson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5853

Maurice, Interesting ramble, and fun to read. But to set the record straight: <<The sky is full of ozone due to the oxygen which plants dumped out so they have trouble getting enough ultraviolet light - having to climb all over each other, grow 100 metres tall and generally fight for light.>> Green plants use visible light, particularly red, far red and blue, not ultraviolet light. Just a little quibble I have as an old Botany teacher. Wherever did this "plants like UV light" get started? Craig Wilson

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (1045)	3/16/1999 12:01:00 PM
From: Robert Sheldon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5853

I wouldn't get in a tangle with George Gilder . . . he has 14,000 scientists to back up his claims. Gore has a bunch of hype and a political agenda.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (1045)	3/17/1999 10:24:00 PM
From: synchro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5853

Geez, Maurice, I never know where you'd pop up

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (1045)	3/18/1999 5:54:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 5853

Not so fast there Maurice! I checked the diameter of the pipelines and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and we are 'farting against thunder' to coin a phrase. There is a LOT of CO2 already in the air, although it has dropped dramatically from the good old carboniferous days. Any oil, coal and gas we dig up in the next hundred years or two isn't going to make a significant difference to the amount in the air. Saudi Arabia is going to have to cut the price to the bone and we'll have to go mad on Orimulsion from the Orinoco basin, dig trillions of tonnes of coal, burn all the gas and we'll still only put a tiny dent in it. 0.03% CO2 in the air doesn't sound much, but that adds up to a LOT of tonnes. Here's somebody who has done some figuring out: microtech.com.au and a general link to what's up with the greenhouse effect: vision.net.au [they don't like Al Gore either] and the New Zealand view! microtech.com.au and here's my old company's data. Click on World Consumption - Chart: bp.com Okay, maybe there is a CO2 increase and things have warmed a bit and the ice is melting and annual snow cover is less and the tide will rise, but it has not much to do with our Hydrocarbon burning. But you were right that more CO2 in the atmosphere and some warming are good things. Maurice PS: Interesting that Johny Cash has already moved!