Whilst the Greta Thunbergs of this world have been wringing their hands and wailing about the disaster that will follow if we don't cut back on CO2 emissions, the planet has been quietly making the most of a good thing.
The planet is greening. Not only has this implications on shrinking the deserts, but it also means that yields of crops have been going up as well.
We are supposed, however to disregard the benefits of additional CO2 in the atmosphere because of a hypothetical disaster that it might cause in the future. Is this not the essence of a scam? For a definite cost in the present, you are promised large but uncertain rewards in the future. It's the same whether it is a "pump and dump" scheme or a ground source heat pump: the promoter walks away with a nice profit and the customer might or might not see their money again some time well into the future.
While the coin is palmed
2 hours ago
4 comments:
I have just spotted the data from the NASA satellite which is apparently monitoring CO2 emissions by country.There are 4 bright red spots as the worst emitters, China, India,USA and Russia.everywhere else gives no problem.
Given that CO2 is so beneficial to plant growth, shouldn't that be "the best emitters, China, India, USA and Russia"?
Response here:
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/dont-plants-do-better-environments-very-high-co2
"Because plants use carbon dioxide to grow, it’s tempting to think they might prefer a planet with more atmospheric CO2 than is present today. That’s not necessarily so."
OK, so the correlation between extra CO2 and a rise in global temperatures shows that the one causes the other, despite their being no known physical mechanism for how this could happen, but the correlation between extra CO2 and additional plant growth is a coincidence, despite there being a well-known mechanism for how this might happen. Yeah, right!
Post a Comment