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 : Manmade Global Warming, A hoax? A Scam? or a Doomsday Cult? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bruwin who wrote (3418)	11/24/2013 5:46:17 PM
From: Sweet Ol	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 4326

Bruwin, What you say is true, but you need to put it in perspective. What is the percentage of CO2 "pollution" due to mankind as compared to the natural causes of CO2 emissions? How does a century of industrial CO2 compare to 1 big volcanic eruption? If we eliminated 100% of industrial CO2 emissions would it make an appreciable difference? What is the cost benefit ratio? These are the questions that need to be answered to make intelligent decisions. It is clear to me that the science of anthropogenic climate change is shaky at best and therefore to be considered with a great deal of skepticism until the above questions are addressed. I have tried to look at both sides equally and have yet to see much that convinces me that I need to worry about any of it other than the waste of tax money and significant interference to the global economy that will cause my grandchildren to have a much poorer future due to this wastefulness for which they must pay. Follow the money! Blessings, JRH

To: bruwin who wrote (3418)	11/25/2013 10:55:07 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4326

But that DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN that any "warming" or "cooling" or "deficiency" in food chains or plant life is being caused, SOLELY, by our actions. I would agree.. but the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) folks would have us believe that humanity is the major problem and we need to be controlled.. primarily through limiting our access to energy.. taxed on our emissions of CO2.. (which to them, is a poison, not plant food).. So be careful.. either you're a true believer, or you're a denier.. ;0) And is it also not possible that the decrease in Phytoplankton content in our oceans is possibly also being adversely affected by what has been introduced into our environment in the last 80 to 100 years, apart from what you stated in your post ? It's entirely possible. As I've mentioned previously, there is a theory that agricultural soil conservation efforts may be limiting the amount of airborne Iron being distributed into the oceans. Or it may be that a hundred or so years of additional CO2 emissions have exhausted the available supply of Iron available to oceanic phytoplankton. Those are TWO anthropogenic possibilities that may have increased CO2 levels. But let's remember.. CO2 is plant food, not a poison. CO2 is ESSENTIAL in order for plants to thrive.. And if that botanical flora has all the other elements it requires, then there is little to stifle it's growth. Therefore, no matter how much additional CO2 we emit, plant life with all the required elements to thrive, should consume it until some limitation arises. And I think the argument is pretty compelling that this limitation is Iron (and maybe a few other trace minerals). So thus, it stands to reason that we're far better off trying to augment natural forces of atmospheric equilibrium, instead of trying to make Billions of people emit less Carbon.. Or being stupid enough to declare it a pollutant. Methane as a Pollutant? I can understand that.. But not CO2.. So we fertilize our lawns to make them grow because we exhaust the available minerals (because lawns don't normally grow in those places).. Why not the oceans? Do it responsibly.. Feed the fish.. Sequester and balance out further CO2 levels NATURALLY.. They way we're doing it now is like taking a sledgehammer to a thumbtack.. Hawk