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: teevee who wrote (51550)	5/14/2014 11:27:43 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

"you believe anthropogenic CO2 emissions are responsible for the california fires........" I believe our CO2 ( and methane) emissions are raising the temperature of the planet, which is causing, among other things, worsening drought, which causes, among other things, more wildfire damage. It also causes more severe rain events. "Weather on steroids". "climate changes over time-always have and always will" Climate changes always have a cause. In this case, it's us, returning fossil carbon to the atmosphere.

To: teevee who wrote (51550)	5/16/2014 3:05:34 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86355

For your interest, here is a blog from an eco activist that is actually trying to do some good in this world: I really can appreciate that Russ George is so fervent a believer in the research that Dr. John Martin pioneered related to Iron Fertilization.. But I've always had a bit of a problem with how he formulated his business plans to take advantage of Carbon Credits, which I view as an utter scam and financial/economic manipulation by Wall St. casino operators like Blythe Masters (who also was heavily involved in creating Credit Default Swaps).. I think the current approach, where the focus is on increasing fishery harvests, makes far more economic sense. The recent success with the Haida indian tribe fertilization effort provides some compelling evidence of it's potential, and common sense logic. I really don't understand how anyone can logically argue that augmenting the marine food chain, and increasing fish populations is something negative. And if it has the consequential result of reducing oceanic and atmospheric CO2 levels, then all the better.. Hawk