The “CO2 is Plant Food” Crock

August 16, 2010

Plants use co2.  Therefore, more Co2 is good. It’s  one of the hardy perennials of climate denialism.

Like most generalizations, sooner or later it runs afoul of the real world.

23 Responses to “The “CO2 is Plant Food” Crock”

  1. docgogo Says:

    The only crock of s… is your very contrived video.

    You make no scientific link between CO2 and the floods, droughts etc etc. And nor can you – please show me any scientific statistical correlation studies to prove a correlation between a trace gas – CO2- at less than 0.04% of the atmosphere with the many variables that effect our climate, and then so called man made climate change -global warming! It is the IPCC and the ‘consensus’ based unscientific nonsense that is kindergarten level.

    Your video is quite fraudulent in regard to Lord Monckton’s correct statement that CO2 is plant food. Your video does not address this issue, but juxtaposes two unrelated events, but that you imply are related. A political propaganda video, not science. Shame on you for such false and pretentious garbage.

    The kindergarten level is yours alone, and the rest of the climate mania bs bandwagon.

    • greenman3610 Says:

      The link between increased CO2 and increased large precipitation events and droughts has been widely discussed, predicted and observed.
      The US Global Change Research program is just one example.

      Click to access water.pdf

      “Floods and droughts are likely to become more common and more intense as regional and seasonal precipitation patterns change, and rainfall becomes more concentrated into heavy events (with longer, hotter dry periods in between).”

    • greenman3610 Says:

      Moreover, see my latest post on the new research out of Canada.
      The “plant food” canard is proving to be yet another brain dead climate denial smokescreen.

    • cbp1129 Says:

      >> You make no scientific link between CO2 and
      >> the floods, droughts etc

      The scientific link is well established in scientific journals of repute and does not need to be made by this video.

      >> Your video is quite fraudulent in regard to Lord
      >> Monckton’s correct statement that CO2 is plant
      >> food.

      I don’t think you know what ‘fraudulent’ means. This video acknowledges that Monckton’s statement is correct – the problem is, his statement is irrelevant.

      >> Your video does not address this issue, but
      >> juxtaposes two unrelated events, but that
      >> you imply are related.

      Of course they are related – more co2 in the atmosphere means more ‘plant food’ of one sort, yet also means more heat waves, bush fires, pests, droughts etc. all of which are kill plants. Simple, no?

      >> The only crock of s… is your very contrived video.

      I don’t think you know what ‘contrived’ means either.

    • greenman3610 Says:

      by the way, I’m still waiting for Lord Monckton’s cure for AIDS and the common cold to be available.
      http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-sceptic-clouds-the-weather-issue-20100201-n8y3.html

      I’m sure you’ll be touting those as well. When will you get it that your hero is the lowest form of snake oil salesman?


  2. […] 18, 2010 A paper published at about the same moment as I was uploading my latest video, (“The CO2 is Plant Food Crock“) further nails down the […]

  3. reasic Says:

    docgogo,

    Would you agree that the ozone layer blocks UV rays?

  4. docgogo Says:

    Sorry, but what unscientific nonsense. I have asked you to cite the references to the correlation studies – not whether you should have put it into the video or not. Stop obfuscating please.

    We are discussing science, not agenda pushing or propaganda. Give me the science to back up your claim. You say “The link between increased CO2 and increased large precipitation events and droughts has been widely discussed, predicted and observed.” You also claim that “The scientific link is well established in scientific journals of repute and does not need to be made by this video.”

    In both of these statements you resort not to science but to “non-science”. Evidence does not comprise words you have used such as “widely discussed” or journals of “repute”. I ask you again to please give me one reference that shows scientific correlation studies as opposed to speculation and inference.

    One can claim that anything is linked, and the fact we get floods and droughts [which have happened for millions of years] is not a proof of a link whatsoever, nort proof of causation.

    Surprise – I do know what contrived means, i.e “obviously planned, artificial, or lacking in spontaneity; forced; unnatural”. In regard to the video what was contrived [i.e forced) was trying to link Lord Monckton’s quote to floods and drought, and the manipulated way you did it. C02 has been much higher in the past.

    Consider the following, and please follow up for yourself:

    “Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!

    Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm — comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!

    Earth’s atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth’s history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.”

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

    In summary, climate has always changed, as we well know, and the environmental bandwagon is heading over a cliff, and has nothing to do with real science, but political agendas and money making schemes [e.g carbon trading], and govt grants.

    I am 100% with you on real environmental concerns and solutions not bogus agendas. CO2 is not the villain, and by chasing this we are squandering and misdirecting huge resource for nothing.

  5. greenman3610 Says:

    http://www.globalchange.gov/
    “Global Climate Change Impacts in the US”
    Input from all relevant government agencies over two administrations.
    Read it.
    You could also look into the IPCC report, and begin following up on the thousands of cited, peer reviewed studies, which would answer just about any question you had.
    The references to the carboniferous period will be addressed in an upcoming video, but are broad evidence of the total misunderstanding that deniers have of the scope of deep geologic time.
    When you say that there was “so much carbon in epoch A” and then “so much in epoch B”, you totally dont get it that in between those periods, frequently there are global catastrophes and extinction events that lasted for millions of years.
    These comparisons are absolutely not relevant on human time scales.
    Suggest you listen to “The Biggest Control Knob”, Richard Alley’s lecture to the American Geophysical Union last year.
    http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
    That would also point you in the direction of some good resources.
    I suspect you will not avail yourself of these resources, because, like so many deniers, you’ll say that the scientists who know the most about the topic are all part of some giant conspiracy.
    The more you know —> the more you are “one of THEM” –> back to Glenn Beck.
    It’s an impenetrable, hermetically sealed logic loop.
    Come back when you have a real desire to learn more.

  6. docgogo Says:

    Thanks for demonstrating so clearly your utter contempt for real science,and resorting to personal attacks, including using labels such as ‘denier’.

    Your ‘manufactured’ description and assumptions of who I am and how I think shows that you are content with wild generalizations based on no evidence. This explains your support for the global warming / climate change -CO2 bs, and the IPCC etc – a political organization pretending at science. No real scientist would resort to claims of ‘consensus’ as being evidence,as the IPCC etc etc does. ‘Consensus’ is a political and agenda pushing tool not science. Ask Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein, Newton etc.

    You know nothing about me, my expertise, knowledge or interests – yet you make this stuff up: “I suspect you will not avail yourself of these resources, because, like so many deniers, you’ll say that the scientists who know the most about the topic are all part of some giant conspiracy.
    The more you know —> the more you are “one of THEM” –> back to Glenn Beck.
    It’s an impenetrable, hermetically sealed logic loop.
    Come back when you have a real desire to learn more..”

    I have asked one direct question – which you can not answer, instead hide and mislead with meaningless claims to “authority” – this is not science but specious argument.

    Sorry, epic science fail, Mr Greenman3610.

    • greenman3610 Says:

      Sorry, your choice of citations says it all.
      Unlike you, I do not automatically assume that I was born with some “gut feeling” that I was smarter than all the experts on the planet who have spent a lifetime studying these issues.
      I chose to approach the topic with some humility, rather than think I knew all the answers.
      Therefore, I prefer to keep going back to scientific sources that have met the
      test of time and peer review, rather than an unreviewed page in the wilds of the internet.

      I know it comforts you to find something that confirms your wish-fullfilling fantasy. We all like to live in that perfect dream world. And there are websites on the internet that will sell you the cancer cure, the perpetual motion machine, or the space alien technology.
      Sorry, I just don’t have that kind of child like faith.

      As you would know, had you ever availed yourself of actual peer reviewed sources, no one cites “consensus as evidence”.
      For better or worse, I choose to cite actual scientists who have spent their lives tramping on glaciers, reading satellite data, and doing real research from somewhere other than an internet site. That’s my bias, sorry.

      You,on the other hand, cite as your source someone whose background is in the
      West Virginia Office of Miner’s Safety.(and I know that’s true, because I read it on the internet).
      Now there’s a resume that
      speaks volumes about him, as well as your judgement and integrity.

      As far as your question, I sent you the answer, and you didn’t bother to follow up on it.
      What Dr Alley points out, is that, as techniques of paleo-climate research have improved,
      pieces of the fossil record that, in the past, appeared to conflict with current understanding of greenhouse gases, have now been reconciled.

      Interested readers wanting a lucid summary of where actual climate science is on the planet’s CO2 history would do well to watch Richard Alley’s lecture to the American Geophysical Union, here:
      http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

      So, actually, I do know you quite well, and your behavior, logic and sources only further confirm how deeply mired in ignorance and arrogance you are. Just another conspiracy minded climate denier.

  7. 4timesayear Says:

    Lol – this video didn’t do a thing to show that CO2 isn’t plant food which indeed it is:)
    Also, Iowa had a very good harvest this year despite the wet weather.
    In addition, the flooding wouldn’t be anywhere near as bad if they’d stop building levees (which exacerbate flooding) and building on flood plains. Someone is very out of touch with reality, and it isn’t the AGW skeptics.
    El Nino and La Nina easily account for all the weather changes that have happened over the last 100 years. For the AGW alarmist, it would seem they don’t exist any more.
    Facts, science, and truth had nothing to do with this video – only a presumption that our piddly 3% of the total amount of CO2 is the cause of “climate change” and a lot of fear mongering. Sad.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: