CO2 rocks!

Oil and natural gas industry funded junky junk "science"

Just Larkin bloviating for attention. Without his name in print daily he has one of his manic-depressive "events". ...Jim Thompson

It wouldn't surprise me if increased CO2 levels increased crop production in the short or even long term. The logic behind the theory seems simple and intuitive. But the methodology used in that paper to calculate "the total annual monetary value of the direct CO2 benefit" is absurd. And there are plenty more where that came from.

The history of science is littered with the corpses of theories that were simple, intuitive, and wrong.

Yep. If you want to have fun with a neighbor who is gung-ho green, just query them about the percentages of each gas in the atmosphere.

It's particularly amusing to scare them about that Argon that's nearly

You're committing what's called the "genetic fallacy", i.e. the assumption that people you dislike or distrust never tell the truth. Your side has been known to lie, you know, and nobody lies all the time. Assessing somebody's argument takes more work than that.

It is odd, I think, that people who fear global warming seem to regard it as the only example of an 'ill wind that blows nobody good.' Even the KT extinction event was a benefit to us mammals, at least in the long run. ;)

Russia and Canada would almost certainly benefit substantially, for instance. Care to invest in a nice beachfront condo on Hudson's Bay?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Oh! From your subject line, I thought you were going to say something about Pop Rocks. ;-)

And all the references?

And all the people who pump CO2 into greenhouses?

I almost have a feeling for the "gaia" theory, that in the long run Earth and its critters take care of themselves. You might have a different spiritual spin, but I think you know what I mean.

The CO2 level on Earth has been declining almost linearly for millions of years, after peaking at 6000 PPM or so. Plants, by sequestering CO2, have been slowly starving themselves to death.

"Rocks" is a verb here, not a noun.

The KT event apparently killed off all the calcareous algae by acidifying the ocean, which must have reduced the drain by a lot.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

They don't. They do assert that the winners will win a lot more than the lo sers lose.

It killed off everything bigger than a small dog (or a very large rabbit). The benefit was strictly in the long term - it took several thousand years before the oceans returned to something like normal, and about three millio n years before thye recovered full ecological diversity.

But make sure it's defensible against refugees flooding north from the US-C anada border.

As long as you can cope with the climate variations that accompany it..............

hey, as long as we can sit back and have a Rum-n-coke or a beir, I'm happy.

And I can play my violin ;-)

Is fire a recent invention?

It's existence is just sinking through the skull of lefties. Of course, there is nothing inside to sink into.

You can buy CO2 rocks. It's called "dry ice".

No, but bushfires this bad, this early in the bushfire season, are unique.

The climate scientists (whose work you don't believe in) see the warmer, dr ier, conditions as part of the anthropogenic climate change that is going o n at the moment. The fire-fighting authority talks about an unusually high fuel load - dry vegetation - because there hasn't been much rain for a whil e - and high winds, which wouldn't have mattered if the vegetation had been wetter.

Here in California people are finally beginning to understand what's happening. Before westerners showed up with fire trucks and airplanes, about 10% of the surface of California burned every year, and it wasn't a big deal. A century or so of putting out fires has created horrendous, unnatural fuel loads, so we get huge fires that kill everything, the oaks and the redwoods, not just the scrub.

As far as human influences on fires goes, putting out the small ones, as soon as they start, is a hugely bigger effect than the AGW climate-change nonsense. None of the whiners were here 200 years ago, to make the comparison.

Same thing is probably happening in Australia.

Imagine beer, or a rum-and-coke, without CO2.

Is fire a recent invention?

If conditions are warmer, they are also wetter overall, right? Perhaps you are referring to Oz only.