rangerx

Umm, your memory is in the ditch. This is the third time in two pages I've had to remind you of your own words. Again, singularly dismissive. So you're back to carbon dioxide doesn't affect seawater then?

You dismissed my point on seawater without reading it. Then when caught with your pants down, dismissed it as having no effect on anything in the first place. Just who is saying "fuck you" there?

Are we really? Last time I checked, we dig more coal and pump more oil than ever. Our population is greater and our dependency (on a global scale) is higher, not lower. And I am definitely not saying your suggestion is not a solution either (irrespective of it's practicality). I'm saying is it's not without consequences, which you've singularly dismissed as affronts to you personally and justifiable for attacks on me, not side effects to the issue. You do well to sort that out.

All except reducing or ceasing dependency upon fossil fuels.

Precisely. The OP is missing the point, if not deliberately avoiding it. They've deliberately conflated natural settings with artificial one's and vise versa for the sake of argument rather than distinction. The analogy being, the OP suggests diabetics can eat as much sugar as they like, so long as they have enough insulin to shoot themselves down. That may be all well and good for a day or two, but the long term effect is much worse than simply avoiding sugar in the first place.

Gaslight much?

Because atmospheric carbon dioxide has a negative effect upon it. While the OP seeks solutions to carbon sequestration, it's not absolute. So long as we introduce carbon dioxide into the environment, an unrecoverable portion will invariably cause acidification, hence doing nothing to reverse the effect.

Ocean acidification from carbon dioxide doesn't mean anything? You're in way over your head.

Then you don't read very well.

I said SEAWATER.

You are the one who suggested an artificial setting is natural, not me. Dense or what?

Now you're just blowing out your ass. Learn some chemistry before speaking on a science forum. FYI, it binds with carbonate, hence neutralizing the ions thus PREVENTING life forms from developing.

I said natural, not artificial.

You obviously missed the part about carbon neutrality of natural ecosystems.

What part of carbon dioxide mixing with sea water creating carbonic acid don't you understand?

Don't put it there in the first place.

Because sequestering carbon after burning sequestered carbon is a stupid idea.

Yes. A healthy forest is carbon neutral. It contains trees of all ages, including mixed species which compensate for interruptions in natural cycles. Planting any single species en-mass is little more than mono-culture and we all know how unruly that gets. The simple(r) solution is to stop digging sequestered carbon from the earth then burning it. Also ceasing clear cutting ancient forests. We need to move toward hydro-electric, solar and nuclear power generation. Also manufacture products with greater efficiencies. Put the money there (or not at all, with proper legislation), not on costly, ineffective after-the-fact issues to maintain the status quo, as the OP would have it.

Octopus recover a great part of their food sources into body weight. Upwards of 30%. Giant squids only live 500 days. Being a mollusk and a gastropod, octopus have histocompatibility with other mollusks and are known to produce pearls, albeit super-rare.

Canadian milk is protected because American milk contains a growth hormone somatotropin (also called bGH, rbGH, bST, or bST) which does not meet Canadian health standards. That's more of a scientific fact and a market choice than a regulation, albeit a science supported, market driven regulation. America can't force Canadians to buy/drink what they've broadly chosen not to drink, especially in the absence of labeling. I don't think "contains bovine growth steroids" sounds very inviting when advertised for sale alongside otherwise hormone-free products. Generally, American agriculture and ranching are way more subsidized than Canada. But that's a discussion better suited for another thread.

Canada has abundant resources, especially lumber and oil. America is upset because it's harvested and pumped from public lands. Yet, American agriculture is highly subsidized because much of it, including ranching is done on public land. The premise Canada "dumps" lumber on the market is ridiculous. It's profitable, not a loss. Countries produce things that other's don't, hence free trade is a benefit to everyone. Canada isn't needlessly hostile as to impose counter veiling duties on food to it's own people. If anything, welcomes Mexico under NAFTA to produce what Canada cannot, especially during winter months. Canada continues to be a leader in the production of grain to the entire planet. Canada and America have an agreement on fish. Alaska catches BC fish and BC catches Washington and Oregon fish. They've co-operated for decades, but a trade war can only lead to destruction, especially in the absence of bilateral management policies. Abandoning the treaty would devastate the Pacific Northwest, at the cost of Canada and Alaska breaking even. The controversial Keystone XL pipeline will invariably be a pipeline to nowhere if Canada increases it's sales to China or the next highest bidder. Western Canada has no refineries, but Texas does. Canada is already at a disadvantage, but supply compensates for it. It flies in the face of energy self sufficiency to alienate the source. Especially from a peaceful ally as opposed to oppressive regimes. Canada has the potential to do to America, what America did to Mexico with water. Abolishing the Columbia River agreement would be devastating for America, whereas Canada's commitment to control floods in America would go out the window. It would actually save Canada a lot of money and open up more flow for hydro electric power than already in existence. Speaking of which, Canada sells hydroelectric power to California for less than it does it's own citizens. That will end if NAFTA is nuked. Either the price will hike, or the plug gets pulled. Either way, America loses and Canadians would enjoy the surpluses for both domestic and industrial use. Canada has given up a lot to compensate for trade deficits. The Auto Pact, and aviation technology (Avro Arrow et al) come to mind, but there are numerous others. All of which were scrapped and gave rise to skyrocketing trade between the two countries under NAFTA. Imposing new tariffs on aircraft, steel and aluminum has doomed America to repeat that history.

Maritime and Admiralty law, the right to volunteer, the right to clean air and water, the right to seek compensation for injuries and loss of opportunity, the right to intervene in international incidents are scarcely one narrow area of the law. I'm certain you understand proving negligence is no small task, it's massive and burdensome. Does it apply to gun laws? Not directly, but it might or could apply in under some circumstances but that's not the point I'm getting at either. My point being it's an underhanded tactic of dismissal from the discussion in the absence of facts and intellectual dishonesty, by presuming my knowledge is less than theirs or others. They are still attacking me personally. by suggesting I refuse to accept anything. Even going laying down conditions that whether I respond or not is contingent on my acceptance. That's objectionable, especially in light of the fact I've been introspective and admonished on points in the past. Take MigL, for example. Largely, we have polar opposite view points and I was unduly harsh. Once he articulated his view on gun control, did I realize there are no sides when it comes to gun control in Canada (only fringes, but certainly not across the board) and took back what I said about him in earlier discussions. Ten Oz objectively deconstructed my assertion on why I and others may believe why Trump was elected largely because of his lack of PC. On revisiting that, realized my point was rhetorical and took it back. That is also objectionable, as needlessly offensive. He is attacking me personally, not the points I make. I am critical of what he says, not who he is. It's not fair.

No, but I've consulted with my lawyers and other pro se claimants during the case and with other lawyers and legislators about the case, subsequent to it's conclusion. I also sat on a royal commission by our government about this incident to apprise both legal and legislative authorities in this country about the proceedings and that no layperson such as myself should be caused to make this kind of representation on behalf of my county, in absence of our government or the assistance needed to undertake it. Being a representative in a class action lawsuit for an international incident (that originated in the USA) on my own dime is about as high level as it gets for just about anyone. The assertion my knowledge doesn't exist or not entire is beside any point. I understand this is a science forum and citations are necessary to support assertions. To dispel any doubt, I am willing to do so, but not publicly, because the case is my name v defendant and my home can be deduced by it, hence I have fears my life could be threatened. The case is public record and I will gladly post the links to you in PM, where you'll be able to match the name with the email address when I signed up for this forum.

I doubt you are done and who in the hell are you to tell me I am too worried about anything? I will not stand for you insulting my intelligence on any level. Refusing to accept anything? Another blatant lie.

You're just talking in circles about something has nothing to do with anything I've suggested. And just who knows "entirely". Even the most learned judge's knowledge isn't entire. Why does that standard only apply to me, if not for being singularly dismissive?