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 : New FADG. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (1913)	6/25/2007 9:04:45 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4152

Sam, More arguments have to be evaluated about artificial iron fertilizations of the ocean before final conclusions can be drawn” It begs the question then, if they are so scientifically conservative, as to why they fail to display the same kind of hesitation about drawing final conclusions related to CO2's contribution to global warming? The last sentence speaks clearly to their agenda: We need to decrease our emissions of carbon dioxide and will probably have to adopt multiple strategies. Again.. CO2 levels should NATURALLY be matched by increasing uptake and sequestration of the gas by botanical flora as more of the gas is present in the atmosphere/oceans. And this would be the case were there sufficient nutrients in the oceans to facilitate phytoplankton growth. But yet, here we have people advocating planting trees, preserving rain forest, and all kind of other eco-friendly programs to increase LAND-BASED flora. But when it comes to enhancing oceanic flora, everyone is making excuses as to why it won't work. Yet, no scientists are honestly expressing any reservations about planting trees or increasing the amount of land that sustains natural flora... Hmmm.... Hawk