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 (187868)	6/1/2006 6:36:32 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

My oh my... Didn't know you were Sylvester's father... I was mimicing some of YOUR vocabulary. First time in my life I ever used "grapes". It is a bit strange, but as it's part of your vocabulary usage I thought it was the best way to communicate. Because there hasn't been any historical data collected, doesn't mean that the logic isn't evident. The logic is evident that phytoplankton might be an acceptable CO2 sink. Go ahead and experiment. That's more than reasonable. 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. What you've done with that statement is show that you aren't interested in applying the same critical level of examination to phytoplankton as you insist on for other theories. 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. Of course we'll do it "properly". Piece of cake, we have lots of experience in managing the global environment "improperly". We've got to be due for managing "properly". And we'll most certainly add the "right" combination of nutrients. Who would possibly think of adding the "wrong" combination? The trial and error approach. We'll just seed the majority of the planet surface [ocean] with fertilizer and see if it works. Unforseen consequences? Not knowing what those are, it's difficult to say that you can actually manage them. Do you have a hidden agenda?? Hidden? I was quite open about it. I was demonstrating that you don't have the same level of critical examination on this approach as you do on other aspects. You'll "what if" and demand an explantion for every little detail and anomoly in someone else's ideas/approaches. But when it comes to phytoplankton none of that inquiry is necessary as it's obvious. I've never said encouraging phytoplankton growth was a bad idea. What I've said is that we don't know very much about phytoplankton historical levels. I certainly am not ready for that trial and error approach of stimulating a life form in the oceans and seeing what happens. jttmab