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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (187803)	5/31/2006 1:57:35 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The article was about MORE than just Gray's perspective. If you bother to reread it, there are other scientifsts and their opinions being referred to in it. And that even with discounting EVERYTHING the guy from CEI might have had to say. I think it's safe to say that there is a set of scientists on one side or the other. I don't think it's a challenge to find a scientist who disagrees with another scientist on a variety of scientific topics. That doesn't mean much other than there are people that are by nature disagreeable. If both of us had our way, I'm sure we'd agree that it would be THIS YEAR. But that's not being pragmatic. And pragmatism is where the solution lies, not in some fairy-tale dream that we're going to convince billions of people to suddenly give up all of the fossil fuel burning contraptions they've acquired overnight. You don't have to convince billions of people. There are billions of people in the world today that care about where their next meal is coming from. Global warming isn't and never will be on their radar screen. We both agree it's not going to be this year. I'll up it. There isn't going to be universal agreement in our lifetime. There isn't universal agreement in evolution and that's simple compared to global warming. And both sides of that argument think it's simple; the other side is obviously wrong. And as you might be aware, I've been in favor of converting to a Hydrogen economy for some time now. I know there are more efficient alternatives that currently exist, such as bio-diesels and alcohol, but I think that converting to a fuel who's only by-product is water, seems a worthwhile goal. Seems like a pretty good idea. How come you're not asking about billions of hydrogen based cars dripping water and what effect that might have? A drip here a drip there, it all adds up to a lot of water into the ground supply and evaporating into the air increasing humidity and changing weather patterns. With all we don't know about weather, maybe going to fusion energy is EXACTLY THE WRONG THING TO DO. Hell, it might even have to go so far as genetically engineering "super-phytoplankton" that consumes even more CO2... HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THIS SUPER-PHYTOPLANKTON WON'T GET OUT OF CONTROL AND CONSUME ALL CO2, KILLING OFF ALL LAND BASED PLANT LIFE AND WE'LL SUFFOCATE TO DEATH FROM LACK OF OXYGEN. But in the meantime, I view the ocean fertilization concept as a "win-win" solution, if properly managed and monitored. We know far less about historic phytoplankton than anything else in this scientific area and you're willing to start dumping "fertilizer" into the ocean. Do you have some stock options in fertilzer companies? jttmab