Y
yaputya
Guest
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
bad thing !!! Arrhenius thought the natural increase in CO2 caused by the increased human influence would avert an ice age and a
potential mass starvation due to lack of food- something that clever man thought would be much worse than any warming trend. You
can grow plants in a greenhouse but not in a freezer, something that has been overlooked by climate scientists because they don't
look at things like how to feed the world. That is a basic fault with the IPCC - they are not concerned with feeding the world.
And that is one of the points that is being glossed over these days - given that the earth is warming (for whatever reason)), isn't
it a huge risk not to spend most of the available money on adapting to the trend to ensure the survival of our species by focussing
on food production instead of wasting it on futile attempts to reverse what may be inevitable climate change?
(This is already happening, of course. The smart money is going to research projects around the world that are developing food
crops that will thrive in the expected warmer
conditions.)
We are going to run out of fossil fuels when all the oil, coal and gas is extracted, so the atmospheric CO2 from humans cannot
increase forever. There is a natural brake on how
long us feeble humans can influence atmospheric CO2. And if global warming continues for centuries after we have stopped burning
fossil fuels because some other factor takes over, we will have
wasted our time and effort in pandering to contemporary political pressures, eh?
Just had a look at your cite Trevor, Arrhenius was brilliant - no doubt - he also thought global warmingwould be a good thing, not a
bad thing !!! Arrhenius thought the natural increase in CO2 caused by the increased human influence would avert an ice age and a
potential mass starvation due to lack of food- something that clever man thought would be much worse than any warming trend. You
can grow plants in a greenhouse but not in a freezer, something that has been overlooked by climate scientists because they don't
look at things like how to feed the world. That is a basic fault with the IPCC - they are not concerned with feeding the world.
And that is one of the points that is being glossed over these days - given that the earth is warming (for whatever reason)), isn't
it a huge risk not to spend most of the available money on adapting to the trend to ensure the survival of our species by focussing
on food production instead of wasting it on futile attempts to reverse what may be inevitable climate change?
(This is already happening, of course. The smart money is going to research projects around the world that are developing food
crops that will thrive in the expected warmer
conditions.)
We are going to run out of fossil fuels when all the oil, coal and gas is extracted, so the atmospheric CO2 from humans cannot
increase forever. There is a natural brake on how
long us feeble humans can influence atmospheric CO2. And if global warming continues for centuries after we have stopped burning
fossil fuels because some other factor takes over, we will have
wasted our time and effort in pandering to contemporary political pressures, eh?