Settled Science
Plants Absorb Much More Carbon Than Previously Thought
show comments
  • Andrew Allison

    It is the purpose of climate models to predict warming trends, and they have all failed miserably. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the effect of increased atmospheric CO2 is very much less than advertized by the AGW scriptures.

  • FriendlyGoat

    What on earth would “smarter, more strategic thinkers in the green arena” do?
    Agree with Republican orthodoxy that there is no climate issue, no effect, no cause, no problem? Agree with Republicans that any bad climate effect the people of the wealthy north force upon the people of the global south is forever and always explainable as “just nature”?

    • Laurence Levin

      How about a moderate sensible policy where we move off of coal and onto natural gas for the short run and then spend money on researching non carbon producing energy sources (like liquid thorium reactors) for the long run. Certainly would be better than the German policy that doubles energy costs while increasing carbon admissions.

    • C.J.Murphy

      “Smarter, more strategic thinkers in the green arena” would first admit that petroleum products provide virtually unmatched energy density, stability in storage, and exceptional benefits to human society. They would then admit that at this point in time “renewable” solutions are not able to provide the energy we need without a drastic reduction in quality of life. Then, they would argue the absolutely tangible benefits of “green” solutions. A decentralized power grid may provide strategic benefits and freedom to those who choose to produce their own power. Wind turbines and solar panels provide excellent solutions for small outposts which need little energy without the need for large infrastructure investment. These can provide limited backup in the case the main grid fails. Lastly, they would argue that the main benefit of using less energy–being more efficient–produces real savings!

      There are many reasons to be “green”. Concern about climate change does not have to be one of them.

      • FriendlyGoat

        In other words, come up with innovative arguments to trick the deniers into doing what they should do anyway—–but without offending their certainty about no AGW?

  • Curious Mayhem

    Plant don’t absorb carbon; they inhale carbon dioxide. That’s why carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, contrary to the quacks and fanatics at the EPA and elsewhere.

    The most signficant “greenhouse gas” (another misnomer in this miserable swamp of quackery) is water vapor, followed at a distant second by carbon dioxide, and at an even more distant third by methane — also not “carbon” — it’s CH4.

  • S.C. Schwarz

    Leonardo DiCaprio says the science is settled so that settles it, right?

    More seriously, when studies like this are mentioned in the NY Times or on CNN then they will start to matter. As for now they will just be ignored.

  • C.J.Murphy

    While perusing NASA’s website recently I stumbled across this article:

    Surely, I thought, this would be front page news! I’ve been monitoring the NY Times website for the past few weeks and have not seen a thing about it. Personally, I am not concerned about global warming and remain skeptical of the predictions. However, I would like to believe that scientists and news outlets would objectively report conflicting data. Failure to report results such as these with the same fervency as those which back up the predictions is dishonest. Further, it shows that these outlets are pressing an agenda.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to and affiliated sites.