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 : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (16425)	9/26/2007 2:32:43 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 36917

the IPCC was a UN BS piece. It has been shown that lies were involved with it. Remember the UN is run by some of the most corrupt dictators on the planet, who hate the USA with a passion. Remember they didn't want to go into Iraq because they were on the take. oil for money Saddam was lining their pockets

To: Sam who wrote (16425)	9/26/2007 8:59:56 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

That is an utterly political tract. You should read the most recent IPCC report. That is the "best guess" among leading climatologists and other scientists. CO2 is up to about 387ppm in the atmosphere as of about 2 years ago, and has been climbing rapidly especially since 1970. How is that article anymore "political" than GW adherents asserting that atmospheric CO2 increases are man-made while IGNORING THE FACT that oceanic phytoplankton have decrease by some 20-30% over the past 20 years?? Would not such a decrease ALSO result in increase CO2 levels in the air? Think of atmospheric CO2 levels as a balanced scale.. With all the proper conditions in balance for proper phytoplankton growth, the balance will seldom fluctuate. Any increase in CO2 is "sequestered" by extra phytoplankton growth (preferable silica-shelled Diatoms). But remove the proper nutrients (iron and silica) from the ocean, or just have a disturbance that interrupts the normal supply, and phytoplankton will remain in dormancy. And if they are dormant, they aren't using up CO2, now are they?? It's the 800 pound gorilla in the living room that the GW adherents seem to DELIBERATELY ignore. It's like blaming air pollution for killing your lawn when, in fact, it's because you forgot to fertilize and water it. Now can you offer up an opinion as to why it's not important to factor in decreasing levels of global oceanic phytoplankton in the analysis of atmospheric CO2 levels? Or is just an argument for the sake of arguing? Because, from my perspective, the REAL QUESTIONS (and potential solutions) are being TOTALLY IGNORED.. And for the life of my I just can't seem to understand why. Hawk