Originally Posted by Hands Sandon
CO2 is an essential part of the atmosphere for life on this planet. I and every scientist acknowledges that. Increasing CO2 levels does encourage plant growth, however it's not always that straightforward as studies have shown that sometimes there are negative consequences for the plants too. As shown here-
"When attacked by Japanese beetles, the plants grown in CO2-rich air failed to induce these three genes to the same extent as plants grown under normal conditions. In contrast, the soybeans' exposure to carbon dioxide didn't affect their use of two control genes unrelated to defence, regardless of the presence of the beetles."
The point though is that rising global temperatures far outweigh any benefits, as shown here-
"WITHIN 60 years the Arctic Ocean could be a stagnant, polluted soup."
You seem to be evading the questions.
You have one article that says "WITHIN 60 years the Arctic Ocean could
be a stagnant, polluted soup." No mention of the probability of this happening and certainly no mention of countervailing effects or factors.
You've not answered my questions. That's fine. But you should note that if you cannot
, then you're not making a rational determination. If you are unable to know all or most of both the negative and
positive effects as well as their impacts and probabilities, then your determination is based on incomplete information.
Now granted, no one can know all of these things with 100% certainty. We're talking about predicting the future here. But my point is that all we've heard about are the negative impacts (along with the assumption that the impacts will be huge and wide not to mention happen with almost 100% probability).
When I find someone trying to sell me something (whether it is a "Cash for Clunkers" program, a government takeover of banks, insurance companies and automobile industries; a "stimulus" program or a government health care "reform" plan) I always find it curious when I see the following pattern:
1. All of the effects are claimed to be positive (or negative depending on which way the argument is going).
2. All of these positive effects are claimed to be of a large and wide magnitude.
3. All of these effects are assumed to be highly probably to the point of near certainty.
4. No mention is ever (or at least rarely and or casually, sometimes derisively dismissed) made of any negative (or positive depending on which way the argument is going) effects (or their magnitudes and probabilities).
I've found this to be true for all of the above mentioned "issues" (and more).
This tends to set off my "Bullshit Meter" or at least my "I Think I Might Be Getting Conned Meter".