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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mel221 who wrote (752889)	11/15/2013 5:41:30 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577989

Mel, My point remains that 100% sequestered carbon is very bad for nearly every lifeform on this planet. That's a silly statement to make given that we'll never reach 100% sequestered carbon. But I think I get the point you're trying to make. When atmospheric carbon is treated like a "pollutant," the logical conclusion is that the less we have, the better. The more logical statement would be that CO2 levels above a certain threshold should be treated as a "pollutant," but no one can say for sure what that threshold should be, only that "higher" is "worse." Tenchusatsu

To: mel221 who wrote (752889)	11/16/2013 4:01:21 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1577989

Tejek - You clearly don't comprehend the info you post. A little bit of applied logic can go a long way. You photosynthesis link clearly states "atmospheric carbon dioxide is incorporated " The whole point I'm making is that sequestered carbon is not atmospheric carbon. Oil is not in the atmosphere; Coal is not in the atmosphere; Methyl Hydrides are not in the atmosphere. Natural Gas is sequestered underground and when in the atmosphere is not able to participate in photosynthesis. My point remains that 100% sequestered carbon is very bad for nearly every lifeform on this planet. Thanks for certifying the point I am making! I don't what you think you are saying or what point you think you are making..............but I can tell you its scientific gibberish.