by ballistic 13 Replies latest jw friends
I agree that increased CO2 levels make plants grow faster, although I'm not sure why anyone would want that on a global scale.
Don't forget that plants grow in certain niche environments and also form part of local food chains. So you're going to get plants growing faster - where they can survive. e.g. desert plants growing across the Northern Hemisphere.
just by way of an update resurrecting one of the few threads with Kyoto in the title :-)
The EU-15 should meet its collective target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 8 % for the period 2008–2012. Part of this decrease will come from emission reduction projects that EU countries will finance in other countries, according to a new report by the European Environment Agency (EEA).
For more see here:
http://www.eea.europa.eu/pressroom/newsreleases/eu-15-on-target-for-kyoto-despite-mixed-performances
The deniers have long held that the EU wouldn’t/couldn’t meet their targets –and they forecast financial disaster if they did.
Yet if we simply look at the progress of major Kyoto signatories we see how terribly flawed this notion is. A 1% cost of GDP is laughable - ridiculous. Perhaps you can explain your cost/benefit theories to post Kyoto Canada, EU, New Zealand, Japan or Russia.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/165999/3074276/post.ashx#3074276 take a bow FreeWilly
It seems to me that laughable, ridiculous and terribly flawed are more appropriate descriptions of the economic policies of most Western governments right now.
Besty, You have proved you have nothing intelligent to add on this issue. There are much larger issues facing humanity. So if you want to take more swipes, apply labels, and display further evidence of a weak arguement be my guest. I am compelled to remind you.......
Questions still unanswered:
What is the factual basis of your claim (besides Al Gore) that there exists a "consensus" among scientists?
How do you explain the fact that CO2 has never been a climate driver in all of Earth's History?
What is the basis for thinking it will start driving climate? (you spout off about your knowledge of the "scientific method" so please incorporate this in you answer)
How do you explain Ice ages at CO2 concentrations over 10x what they are now?
Since CO2 has typically lagged global temperature rise, would you describe it as a cause or an effect?
What makes you confident in the computer models on which ALL of the climate projections are based in the face of their spectacular failures to date?
Please explain the graphic below along including your bit on Occam's Razor:
Surely you have more substance to your arrogant posture. Or did you just jump on the bandwagon?
hey FreeWilly - you're a funny guy :-) next you will be accusing me of eloquence - but that would be rhetoric most subtle...at the risk of arming you with a stick to beat me I will take the chance and let you look here
I will answer your questions on the other thread...no point in chasing me round the board is there...I wish Simon had implemented RSS.
