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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (4236)	1/15/2009 11:26:40 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

All those lying scientist are just the tip of the iceberg. Somehow they got all those energy CEOs on board... dastardly. Dude.. have you forgotten who was just elected President? If you're an "energy CEO", you'd be pretty stupid to oppose an incoming administration that has put itself out as the most vocal advocate of doing away with your entire industry. As a corporate leader, you sway with the political winds in order to benefit your business and shareholders. But if you're a scientist, you're applying sound scientific principles and constantly reviewing your data for anomalies. And when you're dealing with something as complex as the global climate, you'd BETTER review and apply lessons from the paleo-climatic record. And you'd better pay SPECIAL ATTENTION to the impact that sunspot activity plays on global climate, as experienced during the Maunder Minimum and how it pertains to what's happening today. That's why so many scientists are questioning the GW "zeitgeist" because it "feels good", even if it's scientifically inaccurate, or incomplete. That's the problem I have with the scientific community IGNORING oceanic phytoplankton depletion. They ignore the fact that it's quite likely improved agricultural techniques that prevent wind-blown nutrients from nourishing the oceans are primarily the cause of that depletion. And they ignore the fact that, were the oceans properly nourished, the excess CO2 levels would NATURALLY be absorbed by increased phytoplankton blooms. The oceans are the "lungs" of this planet, not the rainforest. However, saving the rainforest is SEXY, whereas the oceans belong to no one, and National Geographic can't easily do specials on the destruction of the phytoplankton "forests" since they are so mobile. So tell me why the overall scientific community (aside from the folks @ WHOIS who specialize in oceanography) have nothing to say about it? Hawk