To: Wharf Rat who wrote (36017 ) 12/3/2012 10:22:16 PM From: Hawkmoon 1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) | Respond to The assertion that their is a "denialist industry" is no different than the assertion that there are those who have created a "AGW/ACC Religion". I think there is merit to both assertions. After all, there's a lot of money to be made by promoting one position, or the other.none of which have been factored into the CO2 model , it further undermines the position of the so-called "mainstream" climate scientists.scientificamerican.com climate.nasa.gov Even you should be able to see the correlation, to the point of saying.. "Hmmmm.. that's interesting and needs to be researched further".. That is, if you're being intellectually honest... Again, It really doesn't matter to me what the source of CO2 is. What matters is whether existing natural processes, that have limited CO2 levels in the past, are breaking down. And the above charts/research strongly suggest that they are. The Oceans are dying from lack of Iron. The Fisheries are becoming increasingly depleted, and this will continue if phytoplankton levels are not restored. Yet, "mainstream" science would have us believe that it is GW that is allegedly increasing oceanic acidification, not the 40% decline in oceanic floral photosynthesis that is leading to increased dissolved CO2 in the oceans.Logic DICTATES that if you decrease CO2 photosynthetic uptake in the oceans by 40%, you're going to see increased acidity and atmospheric CO2 levels. Therefore, the problem is NOT why CO2 levels are increasing, or if it's forcing global warming, but WHY that excess CO2 is not being consumed by the plants that depend upon it for photosynthesis to the degree we've seen in the past. economically competitive means so as not to harm our economic productivity. (I currently favor development of Thorium LFTR reactors as they appear inherent safe and the fuel and facilities would be much less expensive than current nuclear technology).washingtonsblog.com
