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: Hawkmoon who wrote (9979)	6/25/2009 1:51:49 PM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86356

face it Hawk.. doesn't matter how much lipstick you put on phytoplankton ... they just aren't sexy :O)

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (9979)	6/25/2009 6:41:14 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

LOL. You and your phytoplankton. You crack me up. BTW, natural processes include phytoplankton. There was nothing in my post that would disagree with your claims that phytoplankton loss is means we have less CO2 sink capability in our natural processes. The only disagreement you and I have with phytoplankton is the root cause of phytoplankton loss. You think it is due to runoff from fertilizer and I think it is due to increased ocean acidity from increased CO2 levels. But we both agree on the impact of phytoplankton loss, namely further increases in CO2 levels.