Meyer Jordan
Tadpole
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2014
- Messages
- 7,177
- Reaction score
- 5,678
- Location
- Pensacola, Florida
- Hardiness Zone
- 9a
- Country
According to what I read the facts seem to be that co2 has been increasing and that they think that they have to reduce the amount of co2 going into the atmosphere. Co2 is only one of the things that cause green house gasses so to try and change it sounds to me like tinkering with what has been happening for eons. Evolution takes thousands of years to adapt to change. Plants have adapted over millennia to ratio of co2 in the air. To change that in the next few decades doesn't sound like such a good idea to me.Especially if plants are on an evolutionary trend that requires more co2 and not less. I'm not saying that this is so I'm saying let's at least study the benefits of climate change and the benefits are great. If you say something often enough and loud enough that still doesn't make it true. If you cut off dissension, which is exactly what the schools and scientific community are doing, there will only be one view.
Then, following your lead, man's actions in releasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is also "tinkering". Man needs to restrict his "tinkering". That is what the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris agreement are all about.
Yes, you are absolutely correct that plants adapt to changes in their environment over millennia as you have stated, but the changes that are the subject of this discussion have (and continue to) happened over the course of decades, not millennia. No living organism evolves in such a short time period as decades.
Overall, I fail to see what "benefits" can be derived through global warming on this scale and at this pace.