I agree with you that it's a field that needs to be researched but that it's also incredibly "dangerous" to play on our very "playground". I remember meeting a friend from Stanford would told me once that it was considered a serious option to feed some of the plankton in the pacific ocean with some extra fertilizer so that it would consume more of the CO2 in the atmosphere. The good thing with plankton is that it consumer a lot of CO2, but also removes it from the "surface" CO2 cycle*, because when plankton die it just falls to the bottom of the ocean.
If I remmeber corrctly there are 2 CO2 cycles : surface : produces by animals, which then die and turn that CO2 into food for tries, that produce O2 and that are the food for other animals => the amount of CO2 is "stable"... as long as we don't take a lot of it from the other cycle (the mineral one), where trees and other organic matters endup turned into gas and petrol that stays underground for milleniums.
PS : en cas de sinistre (no S)
albert
· 1 month ago
Yes - these things are insanely complicated. That's why I believe that small scale experiments are really important.
Will fix the French!
Vladimir Vukicevic
· 1 month ago
What can I do right now to help your idea? I want to get actively involved but am not a rich person.
albert
· 1 month ago
Thanks for offering - I will add you to the list of people who have offered to help. There will be stuff to do - but it's taking me a while to get organized.
Vladimir Vukicevic
· 1 month ago
Great - thank you. This is an important issue that rarely gets enough/the right kind of attention. I live in New York so participating in the tri-state area should be very doable.
kidmercury
· 1 month ago
general albert stubblebine will tell you the US government has the capability to engineer weather weapons, and that such weapons were used in vietnam. numerous meteorologists will tell you hurricane katrina was a geo-engineered event.
i've repeatedly asked you and AMEE to address the counter arguments against legislating the carbon industry into existence.
like i mentioned previously every time you mention the carbon hoax i'm going to drop the information that you and AMEE have repeatedly refused to respond to in spite of my numerous requests. you and amee are of course encouraged to respond in public to the presentation of such information. the truth community would appreciate it.
nothing personal, just doing my job as a truther.
albert
· 1 month ago
AMEE doesn't need to address this any more than a company selling sunscreen needs to address if the sun really is bad for your skin. The buyers of the product can make up their own mind. It's a free market unless the government sees fit to intervene. As an aside, to support the validity of this comparison, there are plenty of people believing that sunscreen actually causes skin cancer.
Furthermore, the global warming point is not germane to the argument I am making (and in light of bringing on comment like yours I sort of regret having made that linkage). I believe we also must research what kind of geo-engineering could be used to stop a rapid and pronounced drop in temperatures.
"AMEE doesn't need to address this any more than a company selling sunscreen needs to address if the sun really is bad for your skin. The buyers of the product can make up their own mind. It's a free market unless the government sees fit to intervene. "
hahahaha....are you serious albert???? for starters, the government IS intervening, which nullifies your entire argument right there (the govt doesnt force me to pay for sunscreen, i buy it voluntarily). that is what cap and trade and the carbon tax nonsense is all about. you should know this already, as your boy @agentgav is always tweeting about how great it is that obama has expanded the green budget, and how important it is that we track carbon emissions (interestingly he does not have the time to reply to my tweets). and of course, there is the acronym that AMEE stands for. humorously you mock me when i bring up the eugenics agenda, but when AMEE trys to help manufacture a FALSE survival threat (carbon emissions), well it must be legit then! lol. or maybe money has a way of changing one's willingness to acknowledge the truth.
the bottom line is that because we live in a fascist economy whereby government legislates markets into existence, what is going to happen is that lots of small businesses and individuals are going to have to pay a carbon tax, directly or indirectly through higher prices. there is no justification whatsoever for this, as evidenced by your refusal and the refusal of @agentgav to provide evidence for the need to track carbon emissions. so me and other businesses and consumers will pay this unnecessary, unjustifiable cost built on lies, while yourself and other participants in the emerging carbon sector (which of course was legislated into existence by lobbyists) reap profits.
even with your black swan fund, which i think is a great idea in many ways, what is the point if you are not going to recognize that geo-engineering occurs and that many natural disasters are geo-engineered by the US military, as US military officials themselves testify? when you refuse to acknowledge the truth you end up making noise and getting in the way of those of us who are serious about making progress.
All Comments
I agree with you that it's a field that needs to be researched but that it's also incredibly "dangerous" to play on our very "playground".
I remember meeting a friend from Stanford would told me once that it was considered a serious option to feed some of the plankton in the pacific ocean with some extra fertilizer so that it would consume more of the CO2 in the atmosphere. The good thing with plankton is that it consumer a lot of CO2, but also removes it from the "surface" CO2 cycle*, because when plankton die it just falls to the bottom of the ocean.
If I remmeber corrctly there are 2 CO2 cycles : surface : produces by animals, which then die and turn that CO2 into food for tries, that produce O2 and that are the food for other animals => the amount of CO2 is "stable"... as long as we don't take a lot of it from the other cycle (the mineral one), where trees and other organic matters endup turned into gas and petrol that stays underground for milleniums.
PS : en cas de sinistre (no S)
Will fix the French!
i've repeatedly asked you and AMEE to address the counter arguments against legislating the carbon industry into existence.
http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Expl...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/two-peer-reviewed-s...
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/arch...
i have a larger archive on my site: http://www.kidmercuryblog.com/tag/global+warming/
like i mentioned previously every time you mention the carbon hoax i'm going to drop the information that you and AMEE have repeatedly refused to respond to in spite of my numerous requests. you and amee are of course encouraged to respond in public to the presentation of such information. the truth community would appreciate it.
nothing personal, just doing my job as a truther.
Furthermore, the global warming point is not germane to the argument I am making (and in light of bringing on comment like yours I sort of regret having made that linkage). I believe we also must research what kind of geo-engineering could be used to stop a rapid and pronounced drop in temperatures.
As for Monckton, it's instructive to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckt... and the many articles linked to from there.
hahahaha....are you serious albert???? for starters, the government IS intervening, which nullifies your entire argument right there (the govt doesnt force me to pay for sunscreen, i buy it voluntarily). that is what cap and trade and the carbon tax nonsense is all about. you should know this already, as your boy @agentgav is always tweeting about how great it is that obama has expanded the green budget, and how important it is that we track carbon emissions (interestingly he does not have the time to reply to my tweets). and of course, there is the acronym that AMEE stands for. humorously you mock me when i bring up the eugenics agenda, but when AMEE trys to help manufacture a FALSE survival threat (carbon emissions), well it must be legit then! lol. or maybe money has a way of changing one's willingness to acknowledge the truth.
the bottom line is that because we live in a fascist economy whereby government legislates markets into existence, what is going to happen is that lots of small businesses and individuals are going to have to pay a carbon tax, directly or indirectly through higher prices. there is no justification whatsoever for this, as evidenced by your refusal and the refusal of @agentgav to provide evidence for the need to track carbon emissions. so me and other businesses and consumers will pay this unnecessary, unjustifiable cost built on lies, while yourself and other participants in the emerging carbon sector (which of course was legislated into existence by lobbyists) reap profits.
even with your black swan fund, which i think is a great idea in many ways, what is the point if you are not going to recognize that geo-engineering occurs and that many natural disasters are geo-engineered by the US military, as US military officials themselves testify? when you refuse to acknowledge the truth you end up making noise and getting in the way of those of us who are serious about making progress.