Replies

Thanks. Their exaggeration and deceptions cost them credibility. As it should.

I find this interesting and probably most important:

"Is there a scientific basis for Robinson's claim that increased carbon dioxide levels will contribute to increased growth of some plants? Some research has gone into investigating this possibility, but the evidence does not point to the type of reassurance that the OISM is peddling..."
"...Notwithstanding the shortcomings in Robinson's theory, the oil and coal industries have sponsored several organizations to promote the idea that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is "good for earth" because it will encourage greater plant growth."

CO2 does promote plant growth but as to how much I don't know. What I take from that is that since CO2 lags temperature change thus cannot cause it and the effects of CO2 and many other variables that interact are little understood as they relate to climate change; with the Law of Accelerating Returns pointing to a much, much more accurate understanding of climate in twenty and thirty years, human generated CO2 is going to have little if any effect between now and when we know with confidence what can be done to generate desired effects to climate.

The discussion of human generated CO2 having more than minimal effect on climate is a bit like arguing which gives more gifts, Santa Clause or the Easter bunny -- anthropogenic CO2 is not a problem. Creating the illusion of a problem, is a problem.