Pure B.S. They are scaming up a crooked game where ‘’carbon credits’’ will be bought and sold. Of course any company that buys them will naturally pass the cost thru to guess who. We were better off trying to figure out what Y2K would do.
From the WUWT comments....
*********************************EXCERPT*****************************
cagw_skeptic99 says:
Maybe a clearer way to state my question is this: Why so much focus on the land based CO2 cycle? Can there really be a material difference in the amount of land based CO2 contained in the flora of the earth from say, one decade to the next? More CO2 means more vigorous growth and an increase in the total plant matter, but then won’t the earth again reach equilibrium with respect to land based CO2 sequestered in plant material?
It seems to me that those curious about how atmospheric CO2 concentrations will change should be focused on the oceanic carbon cycle. Maybe this is harder to measure or doesn’t contribute in the politically correct direction?
cagw_skeptic99 says:
July 6, 2010 at 10:26 am
“[...]
It seems to me that those curious about how atmospheric CO2 concentrations will change should be focused on the oceanic carbon cycle. Maybe this is harder to measure or doesn’t contribute in the politically correct direction?”
I think the efforts to measure the effect of temperature increase on photosynthesis were done because of concern that the CO2 uptake would drop, which would indeed have been a catastrophe for the land-based biosphere and for food production. So it was a valid concern and urgent enough to get funded.