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: jttmab who wrote (187842)	6/1/2006 12:35:36 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You don't have the grapes to stand up on two legs and say there isn't any historical data on phytoplankton let alone any correlation coefficients? My oh my... Didn't know you were Sylvester's father... Because there hasn't been any historical data collected, doesn't mean that the logic isn't evident. And you're NOT GOING TO COLLECT ANY INFORMATION about phytoplankton if we don't experiment at incremental levels how nutrient deficiency is impacting their growth. Personally, I don't care if there have always been smaller levels of phytoplankton previously, or whether the recent years reflect the greatest quantity of them ever in history. Properly done, and using the right combination of nutrients, it's evident that we can enhance the growth of the right kind of phytoplankton that will sequester C02 and send it to the bottom of the ocean. And if there are sudden unforseen consequences, we stop feeding the little buggers and they go back into dormancy and we have FAR MORE DATA than we had before. What's so friggin' hard about understanding that? Do you have a hidden agenda?? Or is Geode and Sly tutoring you in logic and forensics? Hawk