“CO2 is not a pollutant. It’s the stuff of life. I can’t find anything that’s not beneficial,” he said. “This comes from thousands of studies – mainly from the agricultural community, and these are not casual observers.”
CO2, is Carbon dioxide. Plants need it to make food with. Oxygen is used to digest the food the plans make. Without carbon dioxide, no plants.
CO2 is plant food.
The Warmers should be kissing the feet of CO2 rather than declaring it a poison.
The Warmers should be kissing the feet of CO2 rather than declaring it a poison.
The Warmers should be kissing the feet of CO2 rather than declaring it a poison.
I read something in Science about the ultimate demise of life on earth from decreasing carbon dioxide levels, and spent quite a while searching for it. I didn’t find the exact article, but I found it referenced here:
California Institute of Technology (2009, June 13). Life May Extend Planet’s ‘Life’: Billion-year Life Extension For Earth Also Doubles Odds Of Finding Life On Other Planets. ScienceDaily. http://www.sciencedaily.com; /releases/2009/06/090612203303.htm
And I found this interesting blog, which also mentions the study I was looking for:
http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/too-little-co2-end-life-earth
I think there’s a risk of doing real harm by trying to decrease CO2 levels in the atmosphere. One scheme I read about involved dumping iron into the ocean to fertilize it and encourage algae growth—who ever came up with that obviously was not around when it was discovered that algae growth fueled by phosphates was causing fish kills back in the 70s, which is why the use of phosphates in detergents was drastically reduced.
Wow, an educated adult stating a simple fact we all learned in 4th grade Science...
IT’S MADNESS, I TELL YOU, UTTER MADNESS!
; )
Compared to Madoff, how many millions of dollars has Algore bilked for carbon credits?
CO2 is good for the planet and Al Gore’s bank account, but it is not a polutant; it is essential for life.
“CO2’s ability to trap heat declines logarithmically, so a great deal of the gas makes a big difference, but as the level dips the difference it makes drops exponentially.”
-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—
This is a really poor way to write about this concept. Much more understandable to say:
“Since CO2’s ability to trap heat declines logarithmically, a SMALL amount of gas makes a big difference, but as the level RISES, the difference it makes declines dramatically. Right now, a complete doubling of CO2 (to 700ppm) will change the temperature by only 0.2C, and quadrupling it (to 1400ppm) will only change the temperature by 0.4C. Raising it all the way up to Earth’s historic maximum of 7000ppm can only raise the temperature by 0.9C.”
Thanks for posting this! And thank you Leighton Steward for your obvious wisdom and common sense! Finally, a scientist who is actually a scientist and not a political hack looking for research grant money.
Ping for truth!
What do you think trees and plants breathe?
If somehow we could eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere, we’d all die.
The plants generate our oxygen.
Two great places for objective (should that have to be stated?) scientific information are http://www.discovery.org/v/30 and http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/ . Also, consider going to the article “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” at friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/robinson.pdf . At least read the Abstract, and consider reading the Summary (about 1300 words). Dr. Arthur Robinson at oism.org is one of the leading voices in this debate and a scientist’s scientist. (Consider subscribing to his newsletter Access To Energy - the best $35/year you can spend.) Arthur’s home-schooled son, Dr. Noah Robinson, presents the video lecture at discovery.org.
Yep...looks like a racist, Obaman-hatin’ teabagger. LOL!
