Quote:
via Rusty1970;
Leaving aside the scientific questionablity of the statement....
Rusty1970, do tell me more about this scientific "questionablity" ..
Sure Binghi.
If it is true that some plants benefit from additional CO2 (and I'll take your word for it - I'm not arguing that bit, just the conclusion you drew from it), that doesn't mean that additional atmospheric CO2 is totally beneficial.
If, for example, we have significant temperature drops in continental Europe because of the stopping of the North Atlantic current as predicted in various models, then it doesn't matter that they're getting more CO2, it'll be too cold for many existing plants to survive.
Equally, where it gets hotter, same effect. Not necessarily fewer plants I imagine, but different ones. Where wheat grew before, for example, it will no longer. It'll grow elsewhere though presumably assuming there is water there. The local effects are somewhat unpredictable. The Europe scenario though is obviously a big deal.
Your original conclusion is like saying that the human body needs Arsenic (which it does in trace amounts) so it's OK to increase the concentration in our homes. Clearly this is not the case.
Of course all this is based on you believing the vast majority of scientists who believe that human CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) are causing climate change. If you don't and choose to believe the small minority (many of who have conflicts - contracts from big miners, etc etc) then I guess this all seems ridiculous.
It's worth stating that under John Howard if he had won in 2007 there would have been an Emissions Trading Scheme now. It was an election policy. The same scientists in the CSIRO now advising the current Government by and large were advising him then. It's not a Labor thing. And of course, again, the current Opposition has the same CO2 reduction targets as the Government. They too, officially, believe in human induced climate change, and have a multi-billion dollar plan to try and stop it.