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: RetiredNow who wrote (7040)	4/8/2009 1:43:09 PM
From: Hawkmoon	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

I see is that you guys are failing to see the other side and the valid arguments they are making. Depends on how FAR to the other side you're referring to.. I can certainly understand endeavoring to be good stewards of our environment and resources. For instance, it makes absolute sense to regulate toxic pollutants which are harmful to ALL LIFE.. It makes sense to clean up our rivers and prevent the release of excess nitrates from agricultural fertilizers into lakes and oceans. It makes sense to manage wildlife in harmony with our own livestock operations. It makes sense to preserve old growth and rainforest for it's genetic diversity. But it just doesn't make sense to become raving lunatics hell-bent upon twisting the scientific process in order to advance a political agenda. Certainly not to do over a gas that is at historical lows in the paleo-climatic record of this planet. The true problem is that people of your ilk can only see 6,000 years of history and that makes you very myopic with regard to the planet's climatic history. We're CURRENTLY AT ABNORMALLY LOW LEVELS OF CO2. And it's very logical to postulate that rising CO2 levels represent nothing more than reversion back to the mean. And to oppose it is to put yourself in opposition to the planetary forces and be guilty of geo-engineering. So, IMO, if you're going to try to geo-engineer "mother earth" to suit your own needs, with utter disregard to the paleo-climatic record, just be honest about it. IMO, it's perfectly acceptable to attempt to geo-engineer), then you should be focusing on amplifying the EXISTING NATURAL METHODS of CO2 sequestration. This is why I've focused so explicitly on oceanic fertilization because it's controllable (stop fertilizing when undesirable results occur) and beneficial to the marine food chain. It's also relatively cheap to do on a mass scale in areas where there IS NO CURRENT MARINE LIFE of any consequence (due to lack of phytoplankton). But just be aware that REGARDLESS of what you attempt, CO2 levels may continue to rise because that's just the direction that seems most natural given the historical climatic record. Hawk