Hmm, what to do, what to do
Plants absorbed carbon dioxide more efficiently under the polluted skies of recent decades than they would have done in a cleaner atmosphere, according to new findings published this week in Nature.
The results of the study have important implications for efforts to combat future climate change which are likely to take place alongside attempts to lower air pollution levels. (snip)
Lead author Dr Lina Mercado, from the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, said, “Surprisingly, the effects of atmospheric pollution seem to have enhanced global plant productivity by as much as a quarter from 1960 to 1999. This resulted in a net 10% increase in the amount of carbon stored by the land once other effects were taken into account.”
So, we apparently want more pollution output for plants to absorb CO2 more efficiently, and since CO2 is now considered a pollutant by the EPA, we need more CO2 out put so that the plants absorb CO2 more efficiently. So, everyone buy a big SUV, crank that AC down to 68, use plastic bags!
I blame the increase of CO2 on joggers. Notice that the big health craze and massive increase in joggers, who respire more often then those who are more sedentary, means more CO2 output.
Or, we could just realize that anthropogenic global warming is just a big scam, one which the disciples rarely walk the talk, and the leaders make a fortune (h/t Gateway Pundit)
So what has Al Gore gained from his Big Green escapades?
According to public disclosure information, Gore was worth somewhere between $1 million and $2 million in 2000. Not quite eight years later, Gore is estimated to be worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million. While I ordinarily would applaud such financial gains from such a short period of time, I can’t help but to question just how it happened. When you look out at what Al Gore has done, it’s evident that he figured out on a way to capitalize on the creation of Big Green while becoming the official doomsday prophet that has helped to build Big Green into the monetary powerhouse that it has become.
Consider that Gore said all his profits went to non-profits. I guess Gore considers himself a non-profit.
PS: Just to be clear, I want clean air, clean land, clean water.
Did you read the entire article?
Did you catch that? “Aerosols” are the type of pollution that have been linked to the increase in the productivity of plants’ ability to absorb CO2.
No wonder you don’t understand climate change. You can’t even understand a simple briefing on a scientific paper, much less the paper itself. It’s like you’re not even trying.
You really have no sense of humor, or irony. And, no, I do not really need to try, since the majority of the issue is one of politics and hysterics, pushed and followed by people who are hypocrites.
Gore inherited a lot from his father.. Also after his stint at the low paying White House job he was able to make a lot with speaking fees. One thing Teach that humble wage slaves have a hard time understanding is that people like Gore just MIGHT be impelled by something other than money. Gore currently gets 175K per speaking engagement He joined Google 2001 pre IPO and his stock options are now worth 30 million. After joining Apple his stock options are now worth 12 million. Seen anything “funny” yet ? Some of those hippie/leftist companies are doing QUITE well Teach
Good for them, John. I have no problem with them, or Gore, making money. But, don’t you think it is a bit hypocritical, people making money with capitalism and bashing capitalism, and Gore pushing AGW to make money and get fame?
Exactly. This is a scientific issue, backed by a plethora of scientific research, but you think it’s political because you don’t understand the science. And then you bring up the tired (and yet unproven) “hypocrisy” red herring. You never talk specifics — just generalize about everyone who understands the science of climate change.
Oh, and explain for me how I have no sense of humor or irony. It’d be one thing if your argument made sense, but it doesn’t. Sure, it seems ironic if you discard the fact that they’re talking specifically about aerosols, which have the opposite effect of greenhouse gases, but that’s the whole point of the article.