Once again you are self projecting. My values are rooted in respect for mankind, personal choice, and the world we live in.
No.. I think I understood you pretty correctly.. Maybe you don't understand yourself..
You stated that the government "owes you".. you're the customer and by implication, everyone else can "get stuffed" because your needs come first.
That doesn't seem very "respectful" to me.
And you harangue a very viable and pragmatic idea with fear-mongering and partisan political attacks.
Yet.. how is Oceanic Fertilization any different that "plant a tree" campaigns?
And why is it alright to use fertilizers to increase the yield of our land-based crops, but the same concept applied to the oceans is an "ecological disaster"??
How can increasing phytoplankton quantities in the ocean by incremental and controlled methods amount to "ecological disaster" when it's apparent, that should they DECREASE, it would have drastic, and negative, impacts on both GHG levels and the quantities of marine life. Look at how phytoplankton factors into the food chain:
noc.soton.ac.uk
gma.org
math.montana.edu
grist.org
IMO, there is VERY LITTLE RISK to fertilizing the oceans to promote CONTROLLED phytoplankton growth. It's controllable, it's beneficial, and its CRITICAL to promoting sustainability of the oceanic food chain.
So for you to scoff at it, merely because someone you don't like (me) has to bring it to your attention is CHILDISH.
I'm trying to help your analytical skills ST. Obviously you need to adopt a bit more objectivity.
A little less B*tching and Moaning, and a bit more objective and pragmatic analysis, on your part would do well in restoring your credibility (which is falling fast in my personal opinion).
Hawk |
