Global Warming, CO2...

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
Post Reply
User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Global Warming, CO2...

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:03 pm

Read here.

Basically, it claims that the whole man made increase of global warming is not proved and actually unprovable, and quite dismisses other elements such as global planetary system warming and documented historical peaks and lows of Earth temperature.

PunkMaister
Jedi Knight
Posts: 622
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:25 am
Location: Ponce, P.R
Contact:

Post by PunkMaister » Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:07 pm

While there is no question that we have had an impact there is also no question that the Ecofreaks use a lot of sensationalism and what borders on religious fanaticism to spread their crap across. Take Gore's movie for example. It is one of the most sensationalist pieces of film ever made and then we have the very extreme example of the horrendous sad excuse of a remake of "The day the Earth stood still" with it's message that humans need to be wiped out to preserve the Earth because to the EcoFreaks we are on the same level as shrimps and moss or humanity had to decend back to the age of the caves with no medicine and no nothing so it eventually too it dies off starvation and disease as it was shown in that horrid film's end. Yeah right!
I had never seen a movie that basically made me want to go out and litter as this one did nor I ever hope too again...

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Wed Apr 15, 2009 6:22 am

  • Maybe these » ecofreaks « are using the stylistic device exaggeration because global warming is something that does not happen in next to no time. And it will affect the people of poor nations more and earlier than the people of rich nations. That makes it difficult for dunderheads like you to understand the long-ranging dangers respectively it makes it easy for you to ignore them because you will probably not be affected by them and what happens to other people and nations or to your descendants maybe does not matter to you.
  • And there is another problem: Let us assume, that there is neither a proof, that mankind is responsible for climatic changes nor a proof, that it is not responsible. That still means, that it is possible, that mankind is responsible as it is still possible, that mankind is not responsibel.
    What would you suggest as the next step?
    Carry on as hitherto until it is eventually proven, that mankind is responsible and risking, that then it may be too late to prevent a catastrophe?
    Or err on the side of caution and assume, that mankind is responsible and, based on that assumption, do something, that maybe later turns out to be unnecessary but has in either case no negative consequences to nature?
    Yes, it may have negative consequences to some economic sectors. But the question is, if that is not to be accepted within a risk assessment? The long term negative consequences, if mankind would be responsible and could have prevented it, could be far, far worse.
  • And concerning » An Inconvenient Truth «: A number of climatologists have confirmed, that Al Gore has, apart from some minor points, accurately presented the state of the climate research [1]. Yes there are also climatologists, who think, that the movie lacks a solid scientific base and that Al Gore should have consulted more climatologists before making such a film [2]. But neither are you nor am I a climatologist and are qualified enough to such an appraisal. If I'd be you, I'd be a little bit more reserved to judge something from which I have no clue.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1923
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Post by 2046 » Wed Apr 15, 2009 12:12 pm

Who is like God arbour wrote: And it will affect the people of poor nations more and earlier than the people of rich nations.
Why would this be? You're assuming climate change = crop destruction in more agriculture-based economies?
And there is another problem: Let us assume, that there is neither a proof, that mankind is responsible for climatic changes nor a proof, that it is not responsible. That still means, that it is possible, that mankind is responsible as it is still possible, that mankind is not responsibel.
What would you suggest as the next step?
Pascal's Wager is not a logically valid aid to decision-making.
Yes, it may have negative consequences to some economic sectors.
1. Some?!? Well, I guess that's true to a point, since the way they're trying to set the system up it'll work like a progressive tax on the wealthy nations and a welfare system for the poorer ones. However, I would argue that even the welfare recipients are having negative consequences, even if they are gilded over by welfare checks.

2. The simple fact is that even if you use Pascal's Wager as a reasoning aid, you can't rationally do what the environmentalist left wants. Pascal's Wager might correctly lead me to roll up the windows of my car because it might rain, but what you're talking about is building a fortified blast-proof radiation-shielded garage so my car will be protected in case it rains nukes. Because, of course, my car will be super-important if that happened.

That is to say, you need a lot more than Pascal's Wager when you're talking about creating trillions of dollars of cost, unprecedented wealth redistribution, millions of lost American jobs, and of course the even scarier stuff like some of the wacky ideas of things to do to alter the environment, like spreading soot on polar ice and such.

3. The above brings us to the fact that global warming folks need solid evidence, which is the one thing they do not have.

They have neat hockey-stick charts like Al Gore's MBH98-based chart showing runaway temperature increase in the last 75 years or so, but that doesn't actually happen according to NASA's data showing no average temp increases since 1998.

They have models where they claim to be able to discount things like the sun from climate change models and so it must be man's fault, though this is logically absurd given that the sun is by far the primary source of energy and heat for the atmosphere, and was previously responsible for Maunder Minimums and whatnot.

And of course they have plenty of wildly unsupported and alarming predictions, like Al Gore's 20 foot sea level rise by 2100. (I guess it's all gonna come at the end of the century, since it has yet to begin.) Or the claims of super-hurricanes, despite 2007 and 2008 being among the lamest hurricane seasons on record in the northern hemisphere.

And so on and so forth. Each of these wild speculations has prompted politicians to make their own stupid ideas, like banning coastal development. That's over and above the bigger-picture stupid ideas like cap-and-trade and wealth redistribution and stopping everyone but China from building coal-fired power plants to defeat global warming.

4. The last point is that all these efforts to stop global warming are probably only going to hasten it if it were even true. The Prius accomplishes nothing, the 2005 tax credit for bio-fuel use backfired by making paper mills include fossil fuels for the first time, and so on.

The politicians do not have the wisdom to either deal with the problem or control the people on the planet to such a degree as to enable them to fix the claimed problem. Only a 1984-esque society with dictatorial government power could do it. Do you think Pascal's Wager supports us going to that?
But neither are you nor am I a climatologist and are qualified enough to such an appraisal.
Ergo, Al Gore . . . also not a climatologist . . . is not qualified enough to make the film, by your reasoning. You are also not a climatologist and by your own sentence above you are thus not qualified to make the appraisal of the film.

Ergo your advice would apply to both Gore and yourself: "If I'd be you, I'd be a little bit more reserved to judge something from which I have no clue."

PunkMaister
Jedi Knight
Posts: 622
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:25 am
Location: Ponce, P.R
Contact:

Post by PunkMaister » Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:08 pm

Again I ask why is that leftists and muslims alike seem to solely rely on Tu-Quoque arguments, circular reasoning and off course other plethora of illogical arguments such as Pascal's wager, well we can add Murphy's law to that while you are at it. Say for example the proposed use of Algae as the next biofuel, seems very promising it would not force mankind to use every inch of arable land on the face of the planet to produce fuel and would potentially lean the world from it's dependency on oil but oh wait. Should this alage accidentally get into the sea and grow to plague proportions wiping just about everything else like the aquarium algae has nearly done in the Mediterranean also released by accident. Oh well, there you go...

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:29 pm

2046 wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote:And it will affect the people of poor nations more and earlier than the people of rich nations.
Why would this be? You're assuming climate change = crop destruction in more agriculture-based economies?
The only thing I assume is that the scientists mentioned in the following articles are correct:Because, if they are correct and I would assume that they are wrong, the prognosticated harm would be far worse as if they are wrong and I assume that they are correct. In the one case, many million people are dying. In the other case, some economic sectors may have to bear a few negative consequences.


2046 wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote:And there is another problem: Let us assume, that there is neither a proof, that mankind is responsible for climatic changes nor a proof, that it is not responsible. That still means, that it is possible, that mankind is responsible as it is still possible, that mankind is not responsibel.
What would you suggest as the next step?
Pascal's Wager is not a logically valid aid to decision-making.
Why not? It's only a question of probability and risks.

How probable is it, that there is a god and what could happen with which probability, if there is a god and you assume, that there is no god and what could happen with which probability, if there is no god and you assume, that there is god? When it is probable enough and the possible harm, if god do exist and you have assumed, that he does not exist is significant greater than the possible harm, if god does not exist and you have assumed, that he do exist, it does makes sense to assume, that god exist.

How probable is it, that mankind is responsible for the climatic change and what could happen with which probability if mankind is responsible for the climatic change and you assume that mankind is not responsible for the climatic change and what could happen with which probability if mankind is not responsible for the climatic change and you assume that mankind is responsible for the climatic change?

While there is not one single evidence for the existence of god, there is enough evidence for the responsibility of mankind for the climatic change. It may be disputed. But there are enough climatologists who have mathematical models which may be not perfect but are nevertheless suggesting a responsibility of mankind. Insofar, it is probably enough that mankind is responsible for the climatic change, considering the prognosticated harm, to assume it.
        • (The problem with Pascal's Wager is, that he has misjudged these probabilities by assuming that there are only two alternatives: a christian god does exist as described in the bible or he does not exist. But that's not what is debated here.)

2046 wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote:Yes, it may have negative consequences to some economic sectors.
1. Some?!? Well, I guess that's true to a point, since the way they're trying to set the system up it'll work like a progressive tax on the wealthy nations and a welfare system for the poorer ones. However, I would argue that even the welfare recipients are having negative consequences, even if they are gilded over by welfare checks.

2. The simple fact is that even if you use Pascal's Wager as a reasoning aid, you can't rationally do what the environmentalist left wants. Pascal's Wager might correctly lead me to roll up the windows of my car because it might rain, but what you're talking about is building a fortified blast-proof radiation-shielded garage so my car will be protected in case it rains nukes. Because, of course, my car will be super-important if that happened.

That is to say, you need a lot more than Pascal's Wager when you're talking about creating trillions of dollars of cost, unprecedented wealth redistribution, millions of lost American jobs, and of course the even scarier stuff like some of the wacky ideas of things to do to alter the environment, like spreading soot on polar ice and such.

3. The above brings us to the fact that global warming folks need solid evidence, which is the one thing they do not have.

They have neat hockey-stick charts like Al Gore's MBH98-based chart showing runaway temperature increase in the last 75 years or so, but that doesn't actually happen according to NASA's data showing no average temp increases since 1998.

They have models where they claim to be able to discount things like the sun from climate change models and so it must be man's fault, though this is logically absurd given that the sun is by far the primary source of energy and heat for the atmosphere, and was previously responsible for Maunder Minimums and whatnot.

And of course they have plenty of wildly unsupported and alarming predictions, like Al Gore's 20 foot sea level rise by 2100. (I guess it's all gonna come at the end of the century, since it has yet to begin.) Or the claims of super-hurricanes, despite 2007 and 2008 being among the lamest hurricane seasons on record in the northern hemisphere.

And so on and so forth. Each of these wild speculations has prompted politicians to make their own stupid ideas, like banning coastal development. That's over and above the bigger-picture stupid ideas like cap-and-trade and wealth redistribution and stopping everyone but China from building coal-fired power plants to defeat global warming.

4. The last point is that all these efforts to stop global warming are probably only going to hasten it if it were even true. The Prius accomplishes nothing, the 2005 tax credit for bio-fuel use backfired by making paper mills include fossil fuels for the first time, and so on.

The politicians do not have the wisdom to either deal with the problem or control the people on the planet to such a degree as to enable them to fix the claimed problem. Only a 1984-esque society with dictatorial government power could do it. Do you think Pascal's Wager supports us going to that?
The part is unreasonable and does not deserve, that I waste my time with answering it. If you think, that it is probably enough that » it rains nukes «, maybe you should build » a fortified blast-proof radiation-shielded garage «.


2046 wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote:But neither are you nor am I a climatologist and are qualified enough to such an appraisal.
Ergo, Al Gore . . . also not a climatologist . . . is not qualified enough to make the film, by your reasoning. You are also not a climatologist and by your own sentence above you are thus not qualified to make the appraisal of the film.

Ergo your advice would apply to both Gore and yourself: "If I'd be you, I'd be a little bit more reserved to judge something from which I have no clue."
  1. You are correct insofar, as that I'm indeed not qualified enough to appraise the correctness of the content of this film. But I have not make an appraisal of the correctness of the content of this film. I have merely reported, what a number of climatologists have said about it.
  2. And you are insofar correct, as that Al Gore probably is also not qualified enough to appraise the correctness of the content of this film. But Al Gore has had scientific consultants and has not presented his personal opinion but the state of the climate research. For making a film to present it, he does not have to be himself a qualified climatologist. And a number of climatologists have confirmed, that Al Gore has, apart from some minor points, accurately presented the state of the climate research [1]. These are qualified enough to make an appraisal of the correctness of the content of this film.

PunkMaister
Jedi Knight
Posts: 622
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:25 am
Location: Ponce, P.R
Contact:

Post by PunkMaister » Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:37 pm

Who is like God arbour wrote:
2046 wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote:And it will affect the people of poor nations more and earlier than the people of rich nations.
Why would this be? You're assuming climate change = crop destruction in more agriculture-based economies?
The only thing I assume is that the scientists mentioned in the following articles are correct:Because, if they are correct and I would assume that they are wrong, the prognosticated harm would be far worse as if they are wrong and I assume that they are correct. In the one case, many million people are dying. In the other case, some economic sectors may have to bear a few negative consequences.
Some sectors again, lets be clear what you mean by that what you mean is leaving all Americans and westerners in general unemployed, homeless and quite possibly starving as well. That's a great idea to save the poor let's make the whole world poor so everybody dies and suffer equally. (NOT)

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:40 pm

PunkMaister wrote:Again I ask why is that leftists and muslims alike seem to solely rely on Tu-Quoque arguments, circular reasoning and off course other plethora of illogical arguments such as Pascal's wager, well we can add Murphy's law to that while you are at it. [...]
I challenge you to show me one single Tu quoque argument or one single circular reasoning or other illogical arguments of me. But it is not enough to quote something and say it is such or such fallacy. I expect an analyse, why it is such.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:46 pm

PunkMaister wrote:Some sectors again, lets be clear what you mean by that what you mean is leaving all Americans and westerners in general unemployed, homeless and quite possibly starving as well. That's a great idea to save the poor let's make the whole world poor so everybody dies and suffer equally. (NOT)
Please explain, why a nonpolluting economy would lead to the from you described results.

Why would for example the demand, that General Motors builds in the future only nonpolluting cars result in unemployment, homelessness and starvation?

Please consider also the following articles:That are articles, I've found in only one minute.

And yes, I prefer the whole world a little bit poorer, if that means, that many million people have not to die.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Apr 15, 2009 2:58 pm

PunkMaister wrote:While there is no question that we have had an impact there is also no question that the Ecofreaks use a lot of sensationalism and what borders on religious fanaticism to spread their crap across. Take Gore's movie for example. It is one of the most sensationalist pieces of film ever made and then we have the very extreme example of the horrendous sad excuse of a remake of "The day the Earth stood still" with it's message that humans need to be wiped out to preserve the Earth because to the EcoFreaks we are on the same level as shrimps and moss or humanity had to decend back to the age of the caves with no medicine and no nothing so it eventually too it dies off starvation and disease as it was shown in that horrid film's end. Yeah right!
I had never seen a movie that basically made me want to go out and litter as this one did nor I ever hope too again...
I don't fancy the ideology that man is a disease to nature. Not only nature adapts itself, but man is capable of understanding the problems in its relation to nature and adapt as well. Well, as long as authorities work in the right way.
Turning people into ecogangsters is particularly useful to enforce tax on carbon, nevermind if people aren't given much choice in the energy sources they can use for transport. If a tax there should be, it would have to be applied to the source of the oil, notably on the Halliburtons and the like in greater proportions.
But perhaps it's alrady happening, I didn't check enough of the reality of the situation on this topic.
PunkMaister wrote:Again I ask why is that leftists and muslims alike seem to solely rely on Tu-Quoque arguments, circular reasoning and off course other plethora of illogical arguments such as Pascal's wager, well we can add Murphy's law to that while you are at it. Say for example the proposed use of Algae as the next biofuel, seems very promising it would not force mankind to use every inch of arable land on the face of the planet to produce fuel and would potentially lean the world from it's dependency on oil but oh wait. Should this alage accidentally get into the sea and grow to plague proportions wiping just about everything else like the aquarium algae has nearly done in the Mediterranean also released by accident. Oh well, there you go...
I equally wonder why you need to include Leftists and muslims (what the fuck, seriously) but well, let's move on.
It is clear that algae could provide a solution, but the spread of the plant is much problematic. Unless we could find another lifeform that preys on this plant to limit its growth (and also manage the population of that hunter-lifeform), we'd need to rely on a GMO which would be incapable of spreading on its own beyond eventually the first generation or so.
In my opinion, using GMOs straight in the seas and oceans is extremely problematic, because it would be hard to survey.

And there's the mechanism of HGT, although it's far more noticeable in species with fluidic genotypes, and much less with eukaryotes.
But the problem remains whole, and as we talk percentages, even a small percentage of something big represents a sizeable portion of a genepool.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Apr 15, 2009 3:09 pm

Who is like God arbour wrote:
  • Maybe these » ecofreaks « are using the stylistic device exaggeration because global warming is something that does not happen in next to no time. And it will affect the people of poor nations more and earlier than the people of rich nations. That makes it difficult for dunderheads like you to understand the long-ranging dangers respectively it makes it easy for you to ignore them because you will probably not be affected by them and what happens to other people and nations or to your descendants maybe does not matter to you.
  • And there is another problem: Let us assume, that there is neither a proof, that mankind is responsible for climatic changes nor a proof, that it is not responsible. That still means, that it is possible, that mankind is responsible as it is still possible, that mankind is not responsibel.
    What would you suggest as the next step?
    Carry on as hitherto until it is eventually proven, that mankind is responsible and risking, that then it may be too late to prevent a catastrophe?
    Or err on the side of caution and assume, that mankind is responsible and, based on that assumption, do something, that maybe later turns out to be unnecessary but has in either case no negative consequences to nature?
    Yes, it may have negative consequences to some economic sectors. But the question is, if that is not to be accepted within a risk assessment? The long term negative consequences, if mankind would be responsible and could have prevented it, could be far, far worse.
  • And concerning » An Inconvenient Truth «: A number of climatologists have confirmed, that Al Gore has, apart from some minor points, accurately presented the state of the climate research [1]. Yes there are also climatologists, who think, that the movie lacks a solid scientific base and that Al Gore should have consulted more climatologists before making such a film [2]. But neither are you nor am I a climatologist and are qualified enough to such an appraisal. If I'd be you, I'd be a little bit more reserved to judge something from which I have no clue.
The problem is that an hypothesis has gained support in a way or another, and has progressively turned into a truth or religion while it's essentially the same as before. But progressively, there's a network of scientists, supported by an intelligentsia, altering the essence of the claim.

The point is to return to the true original status, observe the situation and treat all ideas as the theories they were, based on observations.
It does not mean one has to ignore the potential problems of, say, more people in poor and populated countries using more and more combustion engines in their transportation methods.

I'm concerned about ecology to a great degree, but I've always had doubts concerning the de facto reason of global warming. For example, the ignorance of the coincidence of having a perfectly natural raise of planetary temperature just happening to go parallel to a rise of industrial production and energy consumption.

It's merely asking for open mindedness and balance. Not obtuse near religious bigotry.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Wed Apr 15, 2009 3:32 pm

I don't say, that you have to believe the theory which is prognosticating the worst results.

It's correct. One has to gather informations and try to make the best possible decision based on these informations. But one'll never know all that is to know. One has to accept, that one has to make decisions with insufficient informations. That's life.

In such a situation, one has to try to calculate the probabilities of the different possible alternatives and the possible harm or gain and their probabilities for each alternative. That's not always easy. But it has to be done.

If one is a politician and has to make a decision, but is no climatologist, one has to trust in what the later are saying. And if they are divided but one is not able to decide, which side is correct, one has not many possibilities to decide with objective criteria. The most obvious would be to hear, what the majority of climatologist is saying. Yes, they can err. But what else can one do - besides studying climatology?

I can't say, if mankind is responsible for climate changes. I can only decide, which side I trust. That's not necessary the majority. But as long as I see no sound argument, why I should not trust them, I will continue to trust them.

Flectarn
Bridge Officer
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 4:34 am

Post by Flectarn » Wed Apr 15, 2009 4:03 pm

PunkMaister wrote: Some sectors again, lets be clear what you mean by that what you mean is leaving all Americans and westerners in general unemployed, homeless and quite possibly starving as well. That's a great idea to save the poor let's make the whole world poor so everybody dies and suffer equally. (NOT)

Huh... I must have missed that memo at my radical leftist eco-freak meetings

ILikeDeathNote
Jedi Knight
Posts: 430
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:31 am

Re: Global Warming, CO2...

Post by ILikeDeathNote » Wed Apr 15, 2009 4:28 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Read here.
I'm not a Briton, but I would wager that a site/paper whose tagline is "Biting the hand that feeds it" to be what a Briton would call a "farce."

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Apr 15, 2009 5:25 pm

PunkMaister wrote:While there is no question that we have had an impact there is also no question that the Ecofreaks use a lot of sensationalism and what borders on religious fanaticism to spread their crap across. Take Gore's movie for example. It is one of the most sensationalist pieces of film ever made and then we have the very extreme example of the horrendous sad excuse of a remake of "The day the Earth stood still" with it's message that humans need to be wiped out to preserve the Earth because to the EcoFreaks we are on the same level as shrimps and moss or humanity had to decend back to the age of the caves with no medicine and no nothing so it eventually too it dies off starvation and disease as it was shown in that horrid film's end. Yeah right!
I had never seen a movie that basically made me want to go out and litter as this one did nor I ever hope too again...
I don't fancy the ideology that man is a disease to nature. Not only nature adapts itself, but man is capable of understanding the problems in its relation to nature and adapt as well. Well, as long as authorities work in the right way.
Turning people into ecogangsters is particularly useful to enforce tax on carbon, nevermind if people aren't given much choice in the energy sources they can use for transport. If a tax there should be, it would have to be applied to the source of the oil, notably on the Halliburtons and the like in greater proportions.
But perhaps it's alrady happening, I didn't check enough of the reality of the situation on this topic.
PunkMaister wrote:Again I ask why is that leftists and muslims alike seem to solely rely on Tu-Quoque arguments, circular reasoning and off course other plethora of illogical arguments such as Pascal's wager, well we can add Murphy's law to that while you are at it. Say for example the proposed use of Algae as the next biofuel, seems very promising it would not force mankind to use every inch of arable land on the face of the planet to produce fuel and would potentially lean the world from it's dependency on oil but oh wait. Should this alage accidentally get into the sea and grow to plague proportions wiping just about everything else like the aquarium algae has nearly done in the Mediterranean also released by accident. Oh well, there you go...
I equally wonder why you need to include Leftists and muslims (what the fuck, seriously) but well, let's move on.
It is clear that algae could provide a solution, but the spread of the plant is much problematic. Unless we could find another lifeform that preys on this plant to limit its growth (and also manage the population of that hunter-lifeform), we'd need to rely on a GMO which would be incapable of spreading on its own beyond eventually the first generation or so.
In my opinion, using GMOs straight in the seas and oceans is extremely problematic, because it would be hard to survey.

And there's the mechanism of HGT, although it's far more noticeable in species with fluidic genotypes, and much less with eukaryotes. But the problem remains whole, and as we talk percentages, even a small percentage of something big represents a sizeable portion of a genepool.

Post Reply