The team of researchers, based at the University of East Anglia,
carried out the study using automatic sensors attached to merchant
ships crossing the North Atlantic. The findings are based on more than
90,000 measurements.

Whatever the cause, the team says the findings are worrying because
the oceans are one of the planet's biggest carbon sinks, absorbing
anywhere up to a quarter of our carbon emissions.

The team told the BBC the research suggests that in time the oceans
could become saturated. If the seas are starting to become saturated,
the CO2 they would have absorbed will remain in the atmosphere
instead, accelerating global warming. The possible effect on marine
life is unclear.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10...on_sinks_full/

Not that I'd set any store by the BBC, it has been condom in backside
with the theory of evolution for as long as I can remember. And now it
is in bed with all the wrong people, from Steve Balmer to Al Gore.

But anyway the point of all this gush:

If you sweep the fishing banks clear of all their wildlife and damage
the breeding grounds with trawl lines, it is unlikely that the oceans
are going to continue burgeoning with sea life is it?

Last time I looked these were the sort of vehicles that turn oxygen
into CO2 and dissolve it in the sea. It went with the territory. You
didn't get to be a fish if you didn't have gills and you didn't use to
last long even then if the said gills were incapable of cooling you
whilst shedding carbon dioxide into the water and helping the owner of
said gills to relocate.

You might call it perpetual motion if you liked -until the factories
came and hoovered all the fish away. Why am I the only one to think
this is a logical consequence? Am I an idiot?

At least I am not irrevocable damaging the environment and if I was I
wouldn't think it was down to cars and lorries.