One of the reasons that I have tried to mostly withdraw from the global warming conversation here on FR is that when presented with an article such as the one you have offered, I realize that I cannot possibly devote sufficient time to correcting the repetitive misconceptions contained therein.
This article says nothing new. This article repeats a large number of points that have been raised by skeptics, miscontrued and twisted by skeptics, and then acquired by someone such as this apparently well-meaning guy, who then processes them, aligns them with his belief structure, and then does not question them a whit after that.
I blanch when I read something like this:
"In those terms, human emissions amount to about 2.7 PPM equivalents. Now NASA have published a diagram showing annual CO2 transfers for the planet. This shows terrestrial plants absorbing about 61 PPM equivalents. We know that both rising CO2 and rising temperature favour faster plant growth. That’s why horticulturalists artificially raise CO2 levels in glass houses to about 1000 PPM. It is also why plants grow faster in the tropics than in cooler locations on earth. More to the point, a recent study showed average plant growth has accelerated by about 6% over the last 30 years. A 6% increase in plant growth means a 6% increase in absorbed CO2, from 61PPM equivalents to 64.7 PPM equivalents. This means that human emissions have increased by 2.7 PPM equivalents but plants have increased their absorption by an extra 3.7 PPM equivalents over the same period. The increased plant growth is consuming more than 100% of human emissions. Is there another (natural) factor contributing to CO2 increases?"
Can you not SEE how wrong this is?
Is it not obvious why he's so wrong?
