Fester,

I didn't say that. What I said is that the oceans hold about 40% of the total CO2 emissions from all sources.

I wonder if the alarmists have done any REAL research, and not just jumped onto what they felt was a "feel good" story.
I have to assume that they do know, and actually realise that CO2 is composed of 72.71% Oxygen, and a mere 27.29% Carbon.
So when you do the math you find that Oxygen is a good gas, so it further feeds the existing amount of Oxygen already in the air, then as to Carbon, it is a harmless inert molecule which simply falls to ground and does nothing.
So the whole question of CO2 being a dangerous gas is such an outrageous lie and mis-representation, I don't know why we are even discussing this, if only the alarmists had done the simplest of research or inquiries, or asked the right questions, we would not be wasting our time now.
Think about it CO2 is almost all oxygen, which is why it is a good and necessary gas in helping all life on earth to grow and flourish.
We actually need more CO2.

ALTRAV,
When I first read your last comment, I presumed it was an attempt at irony. But now I'm not so sure. Do you actually lack the basic scientific knowledge that most people learn in high school?

As for your comments about the Rothschilds:
Firstly, I see you frantically shifting the goalposts!
Secondly, you're still relying on garbage.

You are far more evil than the Rothschilds are! You'll keep digging in Nazi propaganda and consider it all as you find it! You continue to spout false allegations of blackmail and of them owning many of the world's central banks, because your desire to hate then means you're too bigoted to accept the fact that ALL BUT ONE OF THE WORLD'S CENTRAL BANKS ARE ENTIRELY IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR. And the other one (the US Federal Reserve) is NOT controlled by the Rothschilds.

Your claim that bankers produce nothing is very dubious. They have a useful function enabling others to produce things. And if they're good at their job, you shouldn't begrudge their success,. Where they're making lots of money for doing very little, the solution is more competition (and, to a lesser extent, better regulation).

>There is NO justification for charging the amount they charge for the money they sell to banks and financial institutions.
>People only look at the rate the banks charge, nobody looks at the rate they sell the money TO the banks.
Do you never see the business section of the news? The rate they sell money TO the banks in Australis is justified by the need to control inflation, and set on the first Tuesday of every month except January!
For bank to bank loans it's even simpler - everyone just tries to get the best deal they can. That's how capitalism works.