|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
 Posted - 02/04/2020 : 17:56:58
|
He's a fool about one, and just effing creepy about the other.
The cartoon I'm ranting about is here, on a site that's not sympathetic to the man.
Let's just look at one argument here, and ignore the fact that:
--this fool Garrison doesn't know the effing difference between "weather" and "climate".
--he seems, like many conservative commentators, to be afraid of a young teenager
--he drew a cartoon of her being spanked, which is just fucking creepy all on it's own
Anyway, the argument in question:
"CO2 is good for the planet"...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/
"Scientists have observed the CO2 fertilization effect in natural ecosystems, including in a series of trials conducted over the past couple decades in outdoor forest plots. In those experiments artificially doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels increased trees’ productivity by around 23 percent, according to Norby, who was involved in the trials. For one of the experiments, however, that effect significantly diminished over time due to a nitrogen limitation. That suggests “we cannot assume the CO2 fertilization effect will persist indefinitely,” Norby says.
In addition to ignoring the long-term outlook, he says, many skeptics also fail to mention the potentially most harmful outcome of rising atmospheric CO2 on vegetation: climate change itself. Its negative consequences—such as drought and heat stress—would likely overwhelm any direct benefits that rising CO2 might offer plant life."
This is why you need policy makers who know what the *fuck* they're talking about, instead of ignorant twits who just parrot one liner talking points.
|
|
Ben Garrison on climate change and Greta
