- total industry shill Archived Message
Posted by Ian M
on February 27, 2020, 10:55 am, in reply to "Re: Does anyone know if this thesis of Patrick Moore's has been effectively rebutted? -"
|
Another low if Orlov is basing his arguments on this guy. He's basically just trolling on behalf of the right wing at this point. jeers, I ***** De-smog: https://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-moore 'Moore has worked for the mining industry, the logging industry, PVC manufacturers, the nuclear industry, and in defense of biotechnology. Greenpeace issued a 2010 statement distancing itself from Moore, saying he “exploits long gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes.” [5] Moore has been criticized for his relations with “polluters and clear-cutters” through his consultancy. His primary income since the early 1990s has been consulting and publicly speaking for a variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute. [7], [8] As of 2014, Moore was also listed as a board member of NextEnergy, a Canadian energy services company. [6]' Skeptical Science backing up Mack's points about more CO2 supposedly being good for plants: https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm 'Climate Myth... CO2 is plant food Earth's current atmospheric CO2 concentration is almost 390 parts per million (ppm). Adding another 300 ppm of CO2 to the air has been shown by literally thousands of experiments to greatly increase the growth or biomass production of nearly all plants. This growth stimulation occurs because CO2 is one of the two raw materials (the other being water) that are required for photosynthesis. Hence, CO2 is actually the "food" that sustains essentially all plants on the face of the earth, as well as those in the sea. And the more CO2 they "eat" (absorb from the air or water), the bigger and better they grow. (source: Plants Need CO2) An argument made by those who prefer to see a bright side to climate change is that carbon dioxide (CO2) being released by the burning of fossil fuels is actually good for the environment. This conjecture is based on simple and appealing logic: if plants need CO2 for their growth, then more of it should be better. We should expect our crops to become more abundant and our flowers to grow taller and bloom brighter. However, this "more is better" philosophy is not the way things work in the real world. There is an old saying, "Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing." For example, if a doctor tells you to take one pill of a certain medicine, it does not follow that taking four is likely to heal you four times faster or make you four times better. It's more likely to make you sick. It is possible to boost growth of some plants with extra CO2, under controlled conditions inside of greenhouses. Based on this, 'skeptics' make their claims of benefical botanical effects in the world at large. Such claims 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. Plants cannot live on CO2 alone; a complete plant metabolism depends on a number of elements. It is a simple task to increase water and fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed greenhouse but what about doing it in the open air, throughout the entire Earth? Just as increasing the amount of starch alone in a person's diet won't lead to a more robust and healthier person, for plants additional CO2 by itself cannot make up for deficiencies of other compounds and elements.' [continues...] |