$@!ar W!nd
Favorite Answer
Yes, carbon dioxide is essential for all life on planet Earth. The current level of ~400 ppm is just above the plant starvation level of 150 ppm and it is a scientific fact that at higher levels like the past (4000 ppm) the Earth flourished.
The alarmist political climate science ignores mainstream physics and ground breaking research in favor of their biased junk science that robs the hard working tax payers of their money. Blaming livestock for climate change and bankrupting farmers is going to produce major conflicts if it continues.
Mother Nature's early onset of a harsh winter in the Northern Hemisphere which has devastated the "bread basket" agricultural areas is empirical proof Mankind cannot control or have influence over the Sun, Galactic Cosmic ray flux, solar and planetary mechanics. Political narcissism is slowly failing.
Elizabeth
Because what people are doing is cherrypicking the science they want to accept.
Yes, CO2 increases are benefical for plant growth. But you don't get to choose that fact while simultaneously ignoring 150 years of physics and chemistry telling us that if you increase atmospheric CO2 levels, the planet has to warm. This isn't some wild theory ... you can calculate that the CO2 rise will result in an increase in radiative forcing of 0.2 Watts per square metre of Earth's surface per decade. And then people measured it ... and got an increase of 0.2 Watts per square metre per decade. So CO2 has exactly the measured warming increase the laws of physics told us it would.
The point is ... what does a warming world mean for ice, for sea level rises, for ocean temperatures and currents, for precipitation patterns? What does it do to frosts and pests, irrigation and river levels, flowering dates and pollination by insect populations, soil pH and microbial content, migration patterns of grazers, and so on?
CO2 makes plants good-er is such an over simplification of the issue that it is actually laughable.
The Oracle of Omigod
It is not wrong. CO2 is what makes plants grow. The more CO2 there is on the planet, the more plants grow and thrive.
Anonymous
Did you read the article? While my knowledge of German is almost nil, I did use Google Translate to take a look at it. It begins with Kutschera making a factual error about the 97% consensus number and claiming it started with Cook in 2013. Clearly Kutschera never really looked into that issue at all. You can search Yahoo Answers for "97% consensus" and find questions about it at least as far back as 2009.
Kutschera also says
"I studied biology and chemistry (with a minor in musicology) and then qualified in the USA in the field of biophysics of cell growth (and photosynthesis research). Since the climate of the earth's regions is largely determined by the plants and the physiology of the plants is based on physicochemical principles, I feel competent enough. "
He has this backwards, the climate, to a large extent, determines the plants--not the other way around. Plants do have an effect on the climate of a region, but not THAT large an effect. It sounds like he misunderstood a concept from climatology. Traditionally, climatologists (like Koppen) would map the climate of a region using the vegetation that occurred there. Koppen used that in conjunction with measurements of rainfall and temperature to define formulas for determining the climate of the region.
Also, the biophysics of cell growth is not enough to fully understand things like the greenhouse effect and planetary equilibria.
I'm sure Kutschera is competent enough in his field, but his field is not climate dynamics or climate science.
οικος
It's a matter of degree. Salt, in small quantities, is good for you. In large quantities it can be fatal. The same is true of water. And carbon dioxide.