It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Azimuth wrote on Google plus:
The authors of the Wall Street Journal letter "No Need to Panic about Global Warming" have replied to a rebuttal of that letter, here:
Scientifically the most interesting thing here is a graph that claims to compare predictions of global warming to the actual data. For a criticism of that graph, see below.
The WSJ rebuttal's reply ends with:
The computer-model predictions of alarming global warming have seriously exaggerated the warming by CO2 and have underestimated other causes. Since CO2 is not a pollutant but a substantial benefit to agriculture, and since its warming potential has been greatly exaggerated, it is time for the world to rethink its frenzied pursuit of decarbonization at any cost.
The way I personally perceive their final point is: "let's continue burning carbon (because that is what made us wealthy and happy) until it becomes too expensive to burn. Only the price of fossil fuels is the right measure to tell us when it's exactly the right moment for switching to other energy sources (or having to use less energy)."
Since CO2 is not a pollutant but a substantial benefit to agriculture
Does anyone know of a study where it is exactly the lack of CO2 that prevents plants from achieving optimal growth? (instead of lack of soil water, nitrogen conversion, solar light, trace minerals...)
I'm posting here because this is a more civilized place than Google plus.