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 (10408)	7/2/2009 4:42:29 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 86355

Hawk, maybe it's a combination of human emissions and phytoplankton loss. Why does it always have to be one or the other? Dude.. if I wasn't making a concerted point of discussing the issue of phytoplankton depletion, it WOULD be just a case of "all".. Because neither YOU, nor any of your GW "fellow travelers" are willing to discuss it. In fact, diminishing C02 sequestration by phytoplankton has seldom, IF EVER, been incorporated into the models of increased CO2 levels. Hell, your people are trying to keep one of the foremost Polar Bear experts from testifying simply because he doesn't buy into your GW models. Now only is GW a "religion", it borders on totalitarian censorship. Hawk