Why do you feel this random youtube has any veracity to it?
I have been arguing this subject with two friends for a couple of years. They buy into this reasoning. I don't but I have never heard scientists saying it. Thats why I come to this forum. Most people here are smarter than me. I like to hear what they have to say.
I could comment but I'm not going to waste 20 minutes watching a crap YouTube video.Originally Posted by filix
What are the main points or claims that it makes?
The main points ... The positives of this gas "co2" that comprises just 0.04 percent of our atmosphere abound. We should praise co2 not vilify, ban or bury it. co2 is both an enabler of life and a sign of mans escape from poverty to modern times. The impact on crops and other plants will likely be astounding co2 is truly a secret weapon. A miracle molecule- in the war on hunger poverty and species loss. Co2 enrichment of earths atmosphere will increase yields per acre worldwide and ensure that more people have access to greater quantities of nutritious food, improving human lives while reducing impacts on wildlife and the enviroment.
Sounds like bullshit from the climate change denial mob... Too dumb for words...
One of the dumber arguments.
An equivalent argument -
Arsenic makes up just .000002% of the human body. It is a naturally occurring element in all truly organic food. We should praise arsenic not vilify, ban or regulate it. Arsenic is both an enabler of life and a sign of Man's ability to cultivate food. Arsenic is truly a secret weapon in the war on disease. It is a miracle element. Enabling higher arsenic concentrations will make people healthier, and reducing misguided arsenic regulations will give starving people access to a bounty of nutritious, natural food, improving human life while reducing pollution.
So - is anyone ready to sign up for more arsenic in their water?
I won't watch the linked video but I have come across claims that CO2 was in some kind of terminal decline and we're saving the plant life of Earth by burning fossil fuels. It is not a claim that has wide currency or that is especially effective; more like just one more nonsense claim to throw in amongst Gish Gallops of other dubious claims.
It looked like mathturbation from climate science deniers and obstructors to me when I first came across it - about equivalent to claims we are saving the world from the next Glacial period by our fossil fuel burning. That is, they were presenting and projecting a trend on a graph without looking at the underlying processes and especially not looking at intrinsic nature of those processes that make a long period of declining CO2 concentrations self limiting. Looking more closely at the underlying processes would tell them there is no real prospect of CO2 levels declining to the point where plant life dies - and the essential point they want to make, that it is prevention of emissions that is bad for life on Earth, not rising emissions (and Environmentalist are crazy to want to limit CO2 emissions) would be undermined by actual knowledge.
So? That doesn't mean it doesn't have a lot of warming potential, especially since the overwhelming majority of the atmosphere doesn't consist of greenhouse gasses.
CO2 is neither a good nor a bad thing in and of itself. It just is. Humans need CO2 to live, and we need some in the air for plant food and to keep temperatures warm enough for life. Too much of it in the atmosphere will heat the planet too much. And if you breathe too much CO2 at once you'll pass out.
Your video's argument is like arguing that water is a good thing and we need water to live, therefore it's impossible to drown.
Plants will also be under stress from warmer temperatures and changes in rainfall pattern.
If plants are given more CO2, they will also need more water, and changes in rainfall pattern will make this a challenge.
Too high a CO2 concentration can also damage them, in the same way that eating too much food is bad for humans.
Why dont we move faster on this. Like everybody has to drive electric cars,use solar heat, ect... That will be a huge task. Especially with people who write things like that. Behind big oil I'm sure.
Some political parties fear that regulations to control greenhouse gases will add costs to businesses and slow economic growth. I guess they are hoping that some future technology or something will fix the issue so they do not care what we do to the planet right now. Seems to me to be one helluva gamble! Also the old farts fighting climate regulations will be dead before all the really bad stuff starts happening.
Because it is very expensive to change all the machinery and there are a lot of interconnected parts. But we could drive the change to electric vehicles and electric heating, and use of renewable sources of electricity faster than we are, to be sure. For electricity generation and transport we more or less have the solutions and market forces can be used to drive the change. I think home heating is the next big one. There is little government action on that at the moment.
| « What are you doing to save the planet? | Water spout off Somerset coast » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
