Topics:
Articles tagged with
Claim:
High CO2 was fine for the dinosaurs and high CO2 benefits plants today in greenhouses, so more CO2 can’t be bad for humans
Claim:
Increases in atmospheric CO2 is mainly from natural causes, like ocean outgassing, and not from humans who emit so little in comparison
Science has shown consistently that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is changing the climate in various ways, including raising the…
Claim:
“The question is, ‘how much of an impact do we have on [climate]?’ That has not totally been quantified”; climate change is happening anyway, “The ice age happened without us…It’s probably this constant cycle”.
Claim:
CO<sub>2</sub> is not the cause of our current warming trend; Arctic sea ice has expanded in recent years; Polar bears’ population is growing and is not threatened by climate change; CO<sub>2</sub> is good for plant life
Claim:
“Believing CO2 controls the climate is pretty close to believing in magic.”
Claim:
Carbon dioxide is not a climate heat driver; we had an ice age when the Earth had extraordinarily larger amounts of carbon dioxide; in the 1970s scientists thought we were going to have a new ice age.
“The benefit[s] of increasing CO2 concentrations for plant growth are increasingly being outweighed by the negative impacts, especially of global warming. This is true for natural as well as agricultural ecosystems.”
The Earth’s climate has been quite stable over the past 11,000 years, playing an important role in the development of human civilisation. Prior to that, the Earth experienced an ice age lasting for tens of thousands of years. The global average temperature was around 4C cooler during the last ice age than it is today. There is a real risk that, if emissions continue to rise, the world warms more this century than it did between the middle of the last ice age 20,000 years ago and today.
“This article recycles old tropes such as “it’s been warm before”, “CO2 levels have been higher in the past” (millions of years ago!), “CO2 is plant food”, “warming is good for ecosystems/humans”, “so far impacts are small, so they will remain small”, etc. All these pseudo-arguments have been addressed many times before (see examples here, here, and here). This article is clearly motivated, misleading and biased.”