Quote:
Originally Posted by onwebcam
I don't claim to be a scientist or anywhere close
|
Me either. I am no scientist. However I like to read about science in various magazines in print and in online, and try to watch as much science based TV as I can. When I was a kid my toys were things like Electronic Project kits, chemistry sets, etc. I used to have a Telescope too. It was a weak one but still made looking at the moon really interesting. One of my favourite books is a textbook called "The Emperors New Mind Concerning Computers, Minds and The Laws of Physics" by Roger Penrose. Hopelessly complicated and impossible for me to understand, I still read it a couple of times. I just really like science. Call me nerd, its ok.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onwebcam
but I do know enough to know that your entire argument is based on junk science. My position still stands. We would be much better off with higher CO2 levels.
|
Honestly man, I'm sure you're wrong, or whoever said this is wrong. This isn't junk science.
Co2 is "plant food" sure, but people who claim that more CO2 is better fail to take into account that increasing the availability of one substance that plants need requires other supply changes for benefits to accrue. It also fails to take into account that a warmer earth will see an increase in deserts and other arid lands, reducing the area available for crops.
In other words, plants suck CO2 out of the air: Good. A warmer client though means less plants to suck that CO2 up, so more CO2 remains in the atmosphere, warming things up even more, causing more plants to disappear, etc etc.