SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Politics of Energy
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
Recommended by:
FJB
Sdgla
To: Land Shark who wrote (50827)5/7/2014 2:25:50 AM
From: Hawkmoon2 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) of 86355
 
yawn... youve no comprehensive study to back up your assertation
You shouldn't worry much about LS.. you wouldn't be able to discern what defines a "comprehensive study" if it hit you in the face..

But those of us, even being laymen, can discern that you can't reduce global photosynthesis by 25-35% without a major impact on atmospheric CO2 levels, as well starving fisheries **..

(**Phytoplankton account for 50-70% of all photosynthesis, which consumes CO2 and sequesters the Carbon.. Now divide that percentage by 1/2, which represents PP decline since pre-1950, and that's how much LESS global photosynthesis is occurring over the past 60 years as a rough estimate)..

All while CO2 levels have been rising..

And we're relying upon people like you to explain basic logic and scientific methodology to us?

Really now?

Hawk
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News