CO2 does not need to, and cannot, if life itself is to survive, go to zero. Below 170ppm the plants that form the basis for the ecosystems by using the CO2 to make sugar in photosynthesis begin to starve for lack of it, and without this food every living thing on the planet will die - except possibly for those deep sea vent ecosystems that are based on chemosynthesis, and even that is not assured.
Any examination of the fossil record by competent scientists will show that CO2 levels were at their lowest point in the history of the Earth, about 280ppm, at the beginning of the industrial era. The climate change crisis that is actually a threat to life itself has been staved off by our CO2 emissions, maybe for millions of years, by our raising CO2 back to the relatively low level of around 400ppm today.
Paleoclimatologists look at the fossil record, and see that in the age of the dinosaurs CO2 was more than double the present level, and life thrived from pole to pole on Earth at that time. It is CO2 depletion, lost to space and locked up in coal and other mineral deposits, that has decreased the fecundity of the Earths ecosystems, and made them more vulnerable to habitat loss.
Climate change crisis promoters who state that we need to reduce CO2 emissions have made models of CO2 into the future, but not economic models that are necessary to making sound judgement about what is best to do, or when it is best to do it. They don't even try, and will refuse to even consider it. They don't look at the fossil record, and base all their evidence - on weather reports dating back no further than the 19th century.
Yes I completely agree and I think NASA themselves have recently had to release information that shows the CO2 is in fact re-greening the planet. Interesting that Gore brought a beachside property just after his Inconvenient Spoof video was released. I think it has also been shown that heat drives C02 as opposed to CO2 driving heat, and that itself would sit comfortably within the natural lifecycle of the earth and our precessional movement around the sun.
You are absolutely correct about heat and CO2. The fossil record shows the CO2 does follow temperature, with about an 800 year lag. There is no conceivable manner in which CO2 can be explained to be driving temperature changes given that data, drawn from the fossil record, and generally accepted as correct.
A further note on the statements by climate change alarmists that there is some kind of consensus amongst any kind of scientists in any discipline. First, every branch of science is wrong. Not one of them isn't filled with people trying to figure out why they are wrong in particular details. Second, while many scientists agree on many details, there are as many differing opinions amongst scientists regarding other details as there are scientists.
Science is a method of asking questions to find better explanations. It is not, and cannot, provide certainty of anything.
No problem my friend, we are all fighting for a better world and the fact we help each other along the way is a huge bonus. Now resteemed and following you.
Bill Gates isn't even a high school graduate. The smartest thing he ever did was to steal someone else's work and hire a good marketer.
Oh yes I completely agree .. The like likes of Gates are little more than a salesman for the hidden agenda, and a bad salesman at that.
CO2 does not need to, and cannot, if life itself is to survive, go to zero. Below 170ppm the plants that form the basis for the ecosystems by using the CO2 to make sugar in photosynthesis begin to starve for lack of it, and without this food every living thing on the planet will die - except possibly for those deep sea vent ecosystems that are based on chemosynthesis, and even that is not assured.
Any examination of the fossil record by competent scientists will show that CO2 levels were at their lowest point in the history of the Earth, about 280ppm, at the beginning of the industrial era. The climate change crisis that is actually a threat to life itself has been staved off by our CO2 emissions, maybe for millions of years, by our raising CO2 back to the relatively low level of around 400ppm today.
Paleoclimatologists look at the fossil record, and see that in the age of the dinosaurs CO2 was more than double the present level, and life thrived from pole to pole on Earth at that time. It is CO2 depletion, lost to space and locked up in coal and other mineral deposits, that has decreased the fecundity of the Earths ecosystems, and made them more vulnerable to habitat loss.
Climate change crisis promoters who state that we need to reduce CO2 emissions have made models of CO2 into the future, but not economic models that are necessary to making sound judgement about what is best to do, or when it is best to do it. They don't even try, and will refuse to even consider it. They don't look at the fossil record, and base all their evidence - on weather reports dating back no further than the 19th century.
Yes I completely agree and I think NASA themselves have recently had to release information that shows the CO2 is in fact re-greening the planet. Interesting that Gore brought a beachside property just after his Inconvenient Spoof video was released. I think it has also been shown that heat drives C02 as opposed to CO2 driving heat, and that itself would sit comfortably within the natural lifecycle of the earth and our precessional movement around the sun.
You are absolutely correct about heat and CO2. The fossil record shows the CO2 does follow temperature, with about an 800 year lag. There is no conceivable manner in which CO2 can be explained to be driving temperature changes given that data, drawn from the fossil record, and generally accepted as correct.
A further note on the statements by climate change alarmists that there is some kind of consensus amongst any kind of scientists in any discipline. First, every branch of science is wrong. Not one of them isn't filled with people trying to figure out why they are wrong in particular details. Second, while many scientists agree on many details, there are as many differing opinions amongst scientists regarding other details as there are scientists.
Science is a method of asking questions to find better explanations. It is not, and cannot, provide certainty of anything.
Thanks for the back up!!
No problem my friend, we are all fighting for a better world and the fact we help each other along the way is a huge bonus. Now resteemed and following you.