The CO2 is Plant Food Crock

Support Climate Crocks - go to
http://climatecrocks.com/

Plants use co2. Therefore, more Co2 is good. It's one of the hardy perennials of climate denialism.
Like most generalizations, sooner or later it runs afoul of the real world.

Worst Russian heat in one thousand years
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/russias-heatwave-worst-in-1000-yea...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-09/muscovites-flee-russian-capital-as-s...

KCCI Des Moines, Weather records shattered
http://www.kcci.com/video/24576221/index.html

US Global Change Research Program
http://www.globalchange.gov/

http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-im...

Purdue University- warming boosts corn pests
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2008b/081216DiffenbaughCornpests.html

Rice production falls with warming
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10918591


Stanford Study of heat events
http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2010/pr-extreme-heat-study-070810.html

National Wildlife Federation
http://www.nwf.org/Global-Warming/What-is-Global-Warming/Global-Warming-is-Ca...
http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/Media-Center/News-by-Topic/Global-Warmi...

Plankton decline
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100728/ap_on_sc/us_sci_declining_plankton
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/abs/nature09268.html

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• climate
• greening earth
• CO2 is plant food
• carbon dioxide
• plants
• crops
• climate change
• greenman3610
• climate crock of the week
• oceans
• monckton

[RealOldOne2]

@SourdoughMusk "Unfortunately, you're completely incorrect that the warming is a natural cycle. There is no solid scientific evidence to support that idea"

WOW, you are seriously displaying an abundance of ignorance now!

No solid scientific evidence? Really? How about 4 billion years of earth's climate history? Back & forth b/t hot house to ice ages w/CO2 being lower & 18 TIMES higher than present w/o ANY help from man!

But you believe MAN'S recent 30 yrs are unprecedented!

Hahaha

[RealOldOne2]

@SourdoughMusk "So far you have not provided any economic analysis that refutes what I said originally"

Uhhh, ORIGINALLY you said that NO economic analyses EXISTED! Then I pointed you to two & YOU pointed me to one yourself!

So the FIRST order of business is for you to admit that you were WRONG!

Quit being a denier of your error. Get honest.

And I see from your recent post that you are a denier of natural climate change..

You are DEEP in denial!

Cognitive dissonance in spades.

[SourdoughMusk]

@RealOldOne2 Unfortunately, you're completely incorrect that the warming is a natural cycle. There is no solid scientific evidence to support that idea. The evidence shows that the climate is changing due to man's activities. Even Monckton admits this even if he attempts to downplay the effects.  Yes, it's clearly me who suffers from the cognitive dissonance here.

[SourdoughMusk]

@RealOldOne2 So far you have not provided any economic analysis that refutes what I said originally. The cognitive dissonance lies within you. You have been shown that the works you cited are very poor examples (if you could call them that) of the economic impact of climate change (or even of the regulations assailed). Yet you cling to them.

[SourdoughMusk]

@RealOldOne2 And the Monckton paper is also useless. Where do you get this idea that the costs are 100x the benefits from the Canadian regulations? Monckton's paper cannot be used to judge true cost/benefit because he purposefully omits any other benefits besides CO2 mitigation. If he is going to attempt to scale up the costs he would need to scale up the other benefits as well. There are other problems with it as well. You can't hold that paper up as a true CBA.

[SourdoughMusk]

@RealOldOne2 How can I rebut the MCA paper!?!?! They don't give any data on inputs or calculations. Why do you keep bringing that paper up? It is a propaganda piece pure and simple. It is meant to promote a political agenda!

[Aanthanur]

@RealOldOne2 i dont worry about a future ice age, i worry that we might end the current ice age. i like the interglacial time we are in.

[RealOldOne2]

@Aanthanur "mass extinctions" There MAY have been, but CO2 isn't thought to have caused them.

"The two most accepted current hypotheses for the Cambrian extinction are:

Glaciation in the early Ordovician

Cooling and depletion of oxygen in marine waters" bit(dot)ly/xmftNS

Yep, GLACIATION (that's ICE!) & COOLING, NOT global warming.

"slimate that is suitable for humans"

Don't lose any sleep over CO2/warming. If you insist on worrying, worry about COOLING or the next ice age.

COLD KILLS!

[Aanthanur]

@RealOldOne2 you know there was also mass extinctions during the cambrian period and even then, i want a slimate that is suitable for humans , not for some other animals or plants.