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: Wharf Rat who wrote (22230)	7/17/2008 1:09:26 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

Wharfie, it's not "science" to see a new idea, then conjure up a whole lot of bogeymen from imagination, then assert that those things are so real that nothing should be done, other than the ubiquitous "further research" to keep cash flow going. It's quite obvious from 1000s of years of experience that farming requires nutrients be provided to the intended crops. It is also quite obvious from 1000s of years of experience that adding nutrients has to be done in the right way. There are already commercial nutrient-adding businesses which add nutrients to sea water and the outcome is tons of delicious fish. New Zealand has many of them producing salmon. If the intention is to grow algae, then different farming practses will be needed. The fact that algae husbandry will be needed, doesn't mean it can'tbe done. Luddite always think things can't be done and shouldn't. There is a misguided idea among the scientifically illiterate that Gaia is in balance and cares about Earth. That's a false idea. Earth is NOT in balance, never has been and it's a battle for survival, against the odds, with conditions constantly changing on Earth. Humans are putting some of the carbon back into the ecosphere. The carbon being returned was once alive. Recycling is a good thing Wharfie. Mqurice

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (22230)	7/17/2008 6:51:42 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

“The problem is, there is no sound scientific evidence that this would actually happen,” Richartz told IPS. “On the contrary, ocean fertilisation could have negative side effects that would lead to further loss of marine biodiversity.” And what is his "sound scientific evidence" that say Oceanic Fertilization could have a negative impact?? You don't know until the theory is tested. And there are plenty of "dead zones" in the South Pacific where the theory can be tested repeatedly and under controlled (and reversible) circumstances. Hawk