Alrigth Mr. Castor. Let's talk Kyoto

[LovetoGiveRoses]

That'd be me. Just ask REDWAVE, or scruffy, or any of the other board intellectuals. (Actually, REDWAVE is pretty smart. I think it's the drugs in his case. Much like pp. )

Ishmael

With PP, I think it's just alcohol. LOL.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Ish, when they can't find strong supporting facts on their side and you can rebutt the sperious facts they advance there is but one thing to resort to...calling you names.

You faggot, fashist,, turd sucking, homophobic, racist, father raping, radical conservative baby killer, environment destroying, sister fucking redneck, Limbaugh loving, anti freedom fucktard!

Wanna go get a beer?

Rhumb

Rhumb, you forgot the best one..the comment on ill-fitting clothes.

Good points Ish.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

The short answer is yes, the protocol was a waste of time. Feel good politics.
While the 'greens' like to point at the US as the largest emmiter of green house gases, and we are, their rants are based on the raw numbers. If one were to adjust the raw emmisions by, oh say, the GDP. The US no longer looks nearly as bad. As a matter of fact, I don't think that we make the top twenty.

What this means is that the US is using it's energy efficiently and productively. Yes we use lots of energy, however, we're producing more goods and services per unit of energy than almost any other nation on earth. We're gaining this efficiency through pollution reducing technology. We'd like to see China, India and many of the other developing countries be required to adopt energy efficient production techniques also.

As Kyoto stands now, it's a shameless economic/political heist, not an environmental protection initiative.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Rhumb, you forgot the best one..the comment on ill-fitting clothes.

Good points Ish.

Intelligence and success looks good on anyone.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

There is always room for reducing pollutants. We continue to focus on the dangerous ones. Acid rain was once a big problem in our forests across North America (both Canada and the US), but, through concentrated effort, it's been serverely reduced to the point where it's not a problem anymore.

Mercury hasn't been much of a problem for a long time, though there's still opportunities to control it. We are spending billions on cleanup efforts to try to keep reducing the release of harmful chemicals into our environment.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Facts are good. Facts are the basis for good policy. It is disengenious to say that "people can bend facts." Sometimes that happens, so the onus is to investigate, show where 'facts' are collected in error and produce accurate ones rather than just give up. To give up is to then be forced to develop policy by emotional appeal which often ends up wrong-headed.

I think it's too late in the evening for me to make sense. Good night.

 

[70/30]

What this means is that the US is using it's energy efficiently and productively.

Where do you live? I can't count how many shiny, obscenely large SUVs and candy-painted duallys I see with one person in the vehicle. Oh yeah, half of them are idling in the drive-thru.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Where do you live? I can't count how many shiny, obscenely large SUVs and candy-painted duallys I see with one person in the vehicle. Oh yeah, half of them are idling in the drive-thru.

It's amazing that we can use SUV's and still be so efficient in our industry and in energy generation (where the vast majority of energy is used). Don't look at me, I bought a small sports car with a 2.5 liter engine (and 194 HP - LOL).

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Where do you live? I can't count how many shiny, obscenely large SUVs and candy-painted duallys I see with one person in the vehicle. Oh yeah, half of them are idling in the drive-thru.

When did you start to think that you have any right to decide what type of vehicle I drive, what style of clothes I wear or the style of my hair? The choice of my home, boat, landscaping, dress, coffier, aftershave, deoderant, toilet paper, healthcare insurance and retirement program is, and should be MINE! I think your opinion on any of that is "squat".

Rhumb

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

When did you start to think that you have any right to decide what type of vehicle I drive, what style of clothes I wear or the style of my hair? The choice of my home, boat, landscaping, dress, coffier, aftershave, deoderant, toilet paper, healthcare insurance and retirement program is, and should be MINE! I think your opinion on any of that is "squat".

Rhumb

Yes, I agree with individual rights and the ability to choose. The government could follow EU's pattern and tax gas (and everything else) very steeply. It would ruin our economy, but it would get a lot of SUV's off the road (and with it many people's safety would be compromised). I say let people continue to make choices, keep taxes low and continue to fund research into new sources of energy. (let people drive SUV's if they want.)

It was mentioned by one of the emotional ones above that we should be building more vehicles powered by alternative sources. Did you know that Exxon-Mobil is one of the biggest funders of hydrogen cells (the water cars). There are still some technical hurdles to overcome, but their viability improves every year.

 

[70/30]

When did you start to think that you have any right to decide what type of vehicle I drive, what style of clothes I wear or the style of my hair? The choice of my home, boat, landscaping, dress, coffier, aftershave, deoderant, toilet paper, healthcare insurance and retirement program is, and should be MINE! I think your opinion on any of that is "squat".

Rhumb

That's the attitude that gets us zero allies when Saddam needs to be confronted. GWB has similar sentiments, he just can't express them as well as you (lol). Dude, we all live on the same planet, not on page 223 in the U volume of the encyclopedia. Spend some money here or there and buy some friends with it.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

That's the attitude that gets us zero allies when Saddam needs to be confronted. GWB has similar sentiments, he just can't express them as well as you (lol). Dude, we all live on the same planet, not on page 223 in the U volume of the encyclopedia. Spend some money here or there and buy some friends with it.

Seems to me that that was the attitude born out of the sixties by, what was then the liberal left. Reme3mber when we all said it didn't matter how we wore our hair?

Now the liberals want to decide what style of house I can live in and what color I should be allowed to paint it! I still don't think you have that right. If you want that, move to Switzerland.

Rhumb

 

[70/30]

Did you know that Exxon-Mobil is one of the biggest funders of hydrogen cells (the water cars). There are still some technical hurdles to overcome, but their viability improves every year.

There are many companies that are pursuing this research and making large gains. However, having shortsighted wannabe OIL BARONs in the executive office would seem to discourage that progress from developing into widespread acceptance. To them drilling in Wyoming, Colorado, and Alaska (3 of the few naturally beautiful states we have left) plus cleaner burning coal seems simple enough and no big economic restructuring.

 

[70/30]

Seems to me that that was the attitude born out of the sixties by, what was then the liberal left. Reme3mber when we all said it didn't matter how we wore our hair?

Now the liberals want to decide what style of house I can live in and what color I should be allowed to paint it! I still don't think you have that right. If you want that, move to Switzerland.

Rhumb

Don't come crying to me when we can't find enough help to fully subdue the Muslims. Clinton received widespread acclaim from international leaders, he didn't really care that much about the environment (or peace) but he played the game enough. GWB thinks he's Wyatt Earp, foreigners don't idolise those types as much as we seem to.

 

[Ishmael]

That's the attitude that gets us zero allies when Saddam needs to be confronted. GWB has similar sentiments, he just can't express them as well as you (lol). Dude, we all live on the same planet, not on page 223 in the U volume of the encyclopedia. Spend some money here or there and buy some friends with it.

You are such an ignorant piece of work, really. Totally ignorant.

While you're out hugging a tree, I'll be fucking your girl friend. Then again, I wouldn't. Sorry, brain fart there.

Ishmael

 

[crysede]

I agree that the Kyoto Agreement is a dead issue (and a rather pointless and ineffective document anyway), but I have to take issue with some of your reasons for dismissing it!

1. It is based on the assumption that great global weather changes are taking place. There is no scientific evidence to support this. (The operative word here is 'great'.)

It is concerned with the potential threat of great global weather changes taking place due to rapid change in climate - it is not the amount of change, but the rate that scientist are so concerned about. A relatively small increase in temperature in specific areas will have devastating effects if it happens quickly.

2. It is based on the assumption that these changes are based on man's activities and that man has control of these changes. Again, no verifiable scientific evidence.

That depends on what you mean by verifiable - there is very good evidence that we are undergoing climate change of unprecedented rapidity (the sort of changes that have previously taken hundreds of years are occurring in mere decades) from studies that have been peer reviewed and replicated. Given the seriousness of the issue, I think that insisting on waiting for absolute 100% incontestable proof is rather silly (hmmm where have I heard you making exactly this argument...something about Iraq wasn't it? )

3. It assumes that greenhouse gases are responsible for any of these changes. Again, not only not verifiable, but contrary to measured data.

I thought you said there were no changes? It makes little sense to argue that greenhouse gases aren't responsible for non-existent changes.

But setting that aside, how is it not verifiable, and what do you mean by contrary to measured data? I've seen measured data it's not contrary to.
http://www.whole-systems.org/Resources/co2grph.gif
Graph from: CO2 and Global Temperature Change

4. It assumes that these changes are bad. The geologic record indicates the exact opposite.

Have you noticed that climate change is linked with all the mass extinctions in Earth's history?

Climate change is bad - rapid climate change is MUCH worse (unless you don't mind going extinct, in which case no worries )

LOL, well without posting the links I can answer the CO2 issue with high school biology. CO2 is good for plants. The plant kingdom is the root of the food chain. Anything that causes botanical flourishment is actually good for the ecology.

No, anything that's good for plants is good for plants - you are not a plant, hence will not necessarily be good for you. The plants would be quite happy in conditions that humans would find most unpleasant.

Additionally - higher levels of CO2 are only good for plants if the plants can take advantage of them: since the mean level of atmospheric CO2 has been rising, there is clearly more than the plants can use, ergo the plants are not benefiting. This is little surprise, since we are decreasing the biomass of plants available, and thus actually lowering the amount of CO2 required by the global plant population.

There is a local phenomena called "red tide" that is problematic. Particualrly in the summer. It is local in it's effect, has been documented for decades, and is associated with water temperature in the summer months.

As a rule of thumb, no shellfish, oysters and clams in particular, should be eaten if harvested in months not ending with 'er'. This has to do with bacteria, not pollutants, and has been recognized for centuries.

We have red tides up here quite often these days - it's not all that local

And these things have most certainly not been recognized for decades. Red tides are the result of algae or dinoflagellates (not bacteria), and there are recognized links to pollution with some of the genera that cause these toxic blooms.

For example, the dinoflagellate Pfiesteria piscicida (and some close relatives) which has been making a real pest of itself in recent years in estuaries in Florida, North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland. Pfiesteria, shows strong linkage with pollution, being generally encountered in highly polluted waters. Although the absolute linkage between Pfiesteria and pollution has yet to be established, the evidence is quite strong.

 

[SINthysist]

Ish. Global changes have taken place. The ozone hole was getting bigger, we outlawed CFC's (aerosal cans) and now the hole is closing.

The earth is in a warming trend. CO2 is up.
Mars is on a warming trend. More H20 vapor in the air.
El Sol getting warmer. More helium and hydrogen projected at Earth.

Man keeps placing himself as the paragon of all situations and need to be reminded that the Sun is the center of the solar system...

 

[Ishmael]

Ish. Global changes have taken place. The ozone hole was getting bigger, we outlawed CFC's (aerosal cans) and now the hole is closing.

The earth is in a warming trend. CO2 is up.
Mars is on a warming trend. More H20 vapor in the air.
El Sol getting warmer. More helium and hydrogen projected at Earth.

Man keeps placing himself as the paragon of all situations and need to be reminded that the Sun is the center of the solar system...

Just as I'm about to point out to "Our Lady of Argue with Anything."

There is an arrogance about us, isn't there?

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

Ish. Global changes have taken place. The ozone hole was getting bigger, we outlawed CFC's (aerosal cans) and now the hole is closing.

The earth is in a warming trend. CO2 is up.
Mars is on a warming trend. More H20 vapor in the air.
El Sol getting warmer. More helium and hydrogen projected at Earth.

Man keeps placing himself as the paragon of all situations and need to be reminded that the Sun is the center of the solar system...

PS, that is something that we could have learned from your culture, but didn't.

Ishmael

 

[SINthysist]

Culture? Culture?

Prefer trailer in Tonganoxie to TeePee in Osawatomie...

Prefer phone to smokem signals...

Although there are a lot more deer now than ever before so the hunting's good! IT'S BOW SEASON!

How about that Shakesperian ice-age! MANY INNOCENT BUFFALO AND TREES HAD TO DIE KEEPING RED MAN WARM! Wish had Nuke at Wolf Creek back then! We be good conservative Indians then ! Sorry about global warming WE caused paleface!

 

[crysede]

Just as I'm about to point out to "Our Lady of Argue with Anything."

There is an arrogance about us, isn't there?

Ishmael

"We're arrogant"?

That's it?!

That meagre offering is the totality of your rebuttal to my many salient points?

Your Lady is deeply saddened at the lack of anything further to argue with

 

[Ishmael]

I agree that the Kyoto Agreement is a dead issue (and a rather pointless and ineffective document anyway), but I have to take issue with some of your reasons for dismissing it!It is concerned with the potential threat of great global weather changes taking place due to rapid change in climate - it is not the amount of change, but the rate that scientist are so concerned about. A relatively small increase in temperature in specific areas will have devastating effects if it happens quickly.

You do huh? Yes some scientists are very concerned. Some are so concerned that they are running around screaming doom, gloom, and catastrophe to drum up monies for research grants.

That depends on what you mean by verifiable - there is very good evidence that we are undergoing climate change of unprecedented rapidity (the sort of changes that have previously taken hundreds of years are occurring in mere decades) from studies that have been peer reviewed and replicated. Given the seriousness of the issue, I think that insisting on waiting for absolute 100% incontestable proof is rather silly (hmmm where have I heard you making exactly this argument...something about Iraq wasn't it? )

Is this anything like "It depends on what the defintion of is, is?" (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Yes, there is a change. Knowing why is important. Pointing the finger of blame without knowing the reason is foolish. Assuming that we are in control of nature is arrogant. Implementing draconian measures along with their associated tax burdens in intolerable.

I thought you said there were no changes? It makes little sense to argue that greenhouse gases aren't responsible for non-existent changes.

But setting that aside, how is it not verifiable, and what do you mean by contrary to measured data? I've seen measured data it's not contrary to.

The first period of warming (1890 - 1930) was associated with a measureable increase in the suns energy output. There has been a slight increase during the current era as well. The association with CO2 is specious. You see, in all prior green house epochs, and there have been at least two, green house effect has caused upper atmospheric warming. This has not occured. As a matter of fact, NASA's measurements actually show that the upper atmosphere is cooling. This is where all the models that the 'green house doom and gloomers' build falls on it's butt. They can't account for this. Soooooooo, it is conveniently omitted from their studies.

Have you noticed that climate change is linked with all the mass extinctions in Earth's history?

Climate change is bad - rapid climate change is MUCH worse (unless you don't mind going extinct, in which case no worries )

So what? Was man responsible? Is your goal to save the planet, or yourself? And therein lies the arrogance of the 'green agenda'. It is driven by a personal fear. Almost paranioac in nature. Really not so far removed from the right wing conservatives who are being accused of wanting to roll back the hands of time.

Velikofsky made the case for catastophism back in the late 40's. An 'anti-evolution' stance that has proven to be mostly true so far.

No, anything that's good for plants is good for plants - you are not a plant, hence will not necessarily be good for you. The plants would be quite happy in conditions that humans would find most unpleasant.

Additionally - higher levels of CO2 are only good for plants if the plants can take advantage of them: since the mean level of atmospheric CO2 has been rising, there is clearly more than the plants can use, ergo the plants are not benefiting. This is little surprise, since we are decreasing the biomass of plants available, and thus actually lowering the amount of CO2 required by the global plant population.

Wrong on both points.

The greatest surge of bio-diverstiy at all levels occured duing the last global warming epoch. (One that was green house gas related.) Every form of life on the planet is dependent upon the phtotosynthesizer's for their existance.

Biomass?

Alfalfa;
http://www.co2science.org/co2tables/dry/m/medicagos.htm

Barley;
http://www.co2science.org/co2tables/dry/h/hordeumv.htm

Blue Grama;
http://www.co2science.org/co2tables/dry/b/boutelouag.htm

Monterey Pine;
http://www.co2science.org/co2tables/photo/p/pinusr.htm

White Potato;
http://www.co2science.org/co2tables/dry/s/solanumt.htm

Western Wheat Grass;
http://www.co2science.org/co2tables/dry/p/pascopyrums.htm

Common Wheat;
http://www.co2science.org/co2tables/dry/t/triticuma.htm

Mungbean;
http://www.co2science.org/co2tables/dry/v/vignar.htm

We have red tides up here quite often these days - it's not all that local

And these things have most certainly not been recognized for decades. Red tides are the result of algae or dinoflagellates (not bacteria), and there are recognized links to pollution with some of the genera that cause these toxic blooms.

For example, the dinoflagellate Pfiesteria piscicida (and some close relatives) which has been making a real pest of itself in recent years in estuaries in Florida, North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland. Pfiesteria, shows strong linkage with pollution, being generally encountered in highly polluted waters. Although the absolute linkage between Pfiesteria and pollution has yet to be established, the evidence is quite strong.

I stand corrected on the red tide and bacteria. You are, of course, correct about the dinoflagelletes.

There has been no tie of red tide to pollution. And it is localized in it's effect. In Florida here it's unusual for the bloom to exceed a mile in length. Because of tides and current the affected area is, of course, much larger.

Pfiesteria. Again, no known link. The problem here is that this particular dinoflagelette has made appearances in estuaries that are NOT polluted. Notably in the Carolina's and Georgia. At this point in time any linkage to pfiesteria and pollution is casual, not strong.

Ishmael

 

[crysede]

That's more like it!

You do huh? Yes some scientists are very concerned. Some are so concerned that they are running around screaming doom, gloom, and catastrophe to drum up monies for research grants.

The good scientists tend to ignore anyone who runs around screaming doom and gloom - they certainly don't get very warm receptions in peer reviewed journals of any note (they just get made fun of).

Is this anything like "It depends on what the defintion of is, is?" (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Yes, there is a change. Knowing why is important. Pointing the finger of blame without knowing the reason is foolish. Assuming that we are in control of nature is arrogant. Implementing draconian measures along with their associated tax burdens in intolerable.

The Kyoto accord is not the issue for me - its measures were insufficient to make much of any difference, and impossible to enforce. Frankly I think the very idea of asking people to give up on a single one of their little luxuries is pointless until they can see actual clear and present danger to their way of life - of course then it will too late to prevent damage to our way of life, but what can ya do. Humans suck at foresight, we always have, and we need to keep that in mind and stop wasting time and money trying to get people to take preventative measures aimed at harm prevention.

Yes there is a change - a change that is happening at rates unprecedented in Earth's history except in cases of meteor crashes or other large scale catastrophes. Since this rate of change is too fast to be natural (unless the Earth has suddenly, and inexplicably, started behaving in an entirely different manner from how it has in the past), it begs the question of what is causing it? I have not noticed any massive disturbances on the planet lately other than humankind - have you?

We do know for a fact that increasing CO2 levels always accompanies global warming - it is both a cause and an effect, establishing a positive feedback loop as soon as certain levels are reached. (The chemistry of the greenhouse effect is very well understood, and something we depend on for our very survival - no credible scientists are suggesting that the greenhouse effect does not exist.) Along with this circumstantial evidence, there is also a smoking gun: human kind is contributing 5.7 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (this is 62% of the annual release of atmospheric CO2 - nature accounts for 32%).

There are lots of uncertainties here - but we do know that:

• The current rate of climate change is unprecedented (outside of aforementioned massive disturbances).
• Recently there has been a dramatic increase in human CO2 emissions (through burning of fossil fuels, which are a natural carbon sink).
• Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising, together with temperature.

This is very strong evidence that we are the ones responsible for the increasing levels of atmospheric CO2, and strong evidence (independent of the physics and chemistry, which both tell us this is the case, and explain the causal mechanism) that rising CO2 levels are directly linked to rising temperature levels.

It is not proof beyond the possibility of any doubt - but when our continued comfortable existence on this planet is at stake, is that really a rational standard of proof to insist on? It seems rather like saying, "yes there's a getting to be a lot of smoke in here, but it could be blowing in from outside; and yes it's getting hot, but someone might have turned the thermostat way up: until you can bring me absolute proof that this house is on fire, I refuse to leave." (Not that I expect a single nation on Earth to respond rationally to this.)

What we don't know is:

• How much of the additional carbon we are pumping into the atmosphere can be absorbed by the ocean (so far it has been absorbing quite a bit).
• How much atmospheric CO2 levels can rise before triggering the feedback loops, and sending us into a catastrophic warming cycle (catastrophic for humans and many other higher forms - obviously the Earth as a whole will be just fine).

The first period of warming (1890 - 1930) was associated with a measureable increase in the suns energy output. There has been a slight increase during the current era as well. The association with CO2 is specious. You see, in all prior green house epochs, and there have been at least two, green house effect has caused upper atmospheric warming. This has not occured. As a matter of fact, NASA's measurements actually show that the upper atmosphere is cooling. This is where all the models that the 'green house doom and gloomers' build falls on it's butt. They can't account for this. Soooooooo, it is conveniently omitted from their studies.

And how exactly do you think science knows this? From our satellite data on atmospheric temperatures the geologic past? We don't know shit about what the temperature of the upper atmosphere was like in prior episodes of warming - we determine the temperature in the past through the chemical signatures in the Earth's crust - and the upper atmosphere doesn't leave any (due to it's totally lack of contact with said crust ).

The problem was that the theory that explains how the greenhouse effect works, predicted that the upper atmosphere should warm along with the lower atmosphere - thus it looked like either we'd gotten the theory wrong, or global warming couldn't be taking place.

Latest info on this subject: Theory OK, Global warming real

So what? Was man responsible? Is your goal to save the planet, or yourself? And therein lies the arrogance of the 'green agenda'. It is driven by a personal fear. Almost paranioac in nature. Really not so far removed from the right wing conservatives who are being accused of wanting to roll back the hands of time.

Velikofsky made the case for catastophism back in the late 40's. An 'anti-evolution' stance that has proven to be mostly true so far.

Is "man" responsible? The evidence suggests that yes, we are.

The planet doesn't need saving - Earth will be just fine with or without humans, in fact, one could argue that the planet would be much better off if we did succeed in eliminating ourselves (but I don't see that happening, we're much too resourceful, at most our numbers may decreased for a while).

I don't need saving either: my particular environment will not suffer much from climate change. Nor do I advocate wasting oodles of time and money trying to save people less fortunately located against their will: it won't work, so I don't see the point. People are naturally resistant to taking pro-active measures to protect themselves from some 'potential' threat - the only way to get human beings to so is to force them to (and they'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming the whole way lol). I think every effort should be made to educate people on their current situation, and then if they can't be bothered doing something about it's their own damn fault and scientists should feel no guilt.

Wrong on both points.

The greatest surge of bio-diverstiy at all levels occured duing the last global warming epoch. (One that was green house gas related.) Every form of life on the planet is dependent upon the phtotosynthesizer's for their existence.

By far and away the greatest surge in bio-diversity the Earth has ever seen occurred in the Cambrian epoch - almost none of this bio-diversity has survived to the present day, the accepted theory for the Cambrian extinction (and all other mass extinctions on planet Earth) is climate change

Common features of Mass Extinctions:

1. Extinction strikes in both the land and the sea.
2. On the land, while animals suffer repeatedly, plants tend to be highly resistant to mass extinctions .
3. Preferential disappearance of tropical forms of life during mass extinctions.

Biomass?

As for the CO2 question - yes OK, you win this one: my statements were too vague to be meaningful. Plants do generally benefit from increases in atmospheric CO2 (provided the rest of the climate remains to their liking).

However, I will no make less vague statements on the issue: increasing CO2 is not going to benefit the majority of the photosynthetic biomass of Earth, since we continue to artificially lower it (thus we can't look to plants to sop up the additional CO2).

Additionally, it is highly questionable that humans would reap any rewards whatsoever from significant increases in atmospheric CO2, due to the rather unfortunate climatic consequences that such elevations will result in (and, if the increased elevation winds up triggering the feed-back loop - which scientists think would occur somewhere between +100-200 ppm - then we're really screwed, 'cause there ain't no turning back at that point ).

Every form of life on the planet is dependent upon the phtotosynthesizer's for their existence.

Just to be pedantic (I know, how unlike me ) - you're forgetting the giggatones of chemosynthesizers out there! Heard of deep ocean vent ecology?

I stand corrected on the red tide and bacteria. You are, of course, correct about the dinoflagelletes.

There has been no tie of red tide to pollution. And it is localized in it's effect. In Florida here it's unusual for the bloom to exceed a mile in length. Because of tides and current the affected area is, of course, much larger.

Pfiesteria. Again, no known link. The problem here is that this particular dinoflagelette has made appearances in estuaries that are NOT polluted. Notably in the Carolina's and Georgia. At this point in time any linkage to pfiesteria and pollution is casual, not strong.

The links between Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) and pollution only exist for some of the organism causing HABs, not all. And from what I've read, the evidence in the case of Pfiesteria is quite strong according to scientists - if you've seen studies published that conclude there is no strong link between Pfiesteria blooms and pollution, let's see some references.

Brief summery of evidence for links between some types of HAB's and pollution: Nutrient Dynamics.

Strong evidence for a link in the case of Pfiesteria [for some reason the HTML link won't attach, so this is a .doc link]: PFIESTERIA PISCICIDA: Ichthyotoxic Estuarine Dinoflagellate.

 

[Lancecastor]

I guess you guys enjoy this depth of statistical comparison as a way of debating.

I still don't know where You stand, or how you feel about the state of the ecosystem, Ishmael.

That's far more interesting to me than watching you build advesarial walls, most of which you know can be deconstructed like a Jenga tower anyway.

 

[70/30]

While you're out hugging a tree, I'll be fucking your girl friend. Ishmael

Just trying to capture Starfish's heart. I hear she loves trees and animals (she's got really big tits, too)