So we can make the earth greener which allows us to strip log more forests. The only real problem is that fossil fuels are used quicker than we can find new reserves so we still need to plan for a future where the fossil fules become rarer and a more precious commodity than they already are.

Additionally, there is such a thing as too much CO2. Yes, that's right, we can kill plants with too much CO2 and not enough nitorgen to counter it. But on a global scale it would probably kill us first.

So we've had John Paul, now Jorge any bets on Ringo being the next one?

"The only real problem is that fossil fuels are used quicker than we can find new reserves"
estimated proven oil reserves over time:
1950: 100 billion barrels
1980: 650 billion barrels
2000: 1020 billion barrels
2010: 1240 billion barrels

As the price of oil goes up, oil companies invest in finding new reserves, increasing the supply and once again decreasing the price. We have more proven oil reserves today then any other time in history. The fact is we are not running out of resources because we are more efficiently using them as technology increases.

The environment movement has recently admitted that they were wrong on peak oil:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/02/peak-oil-we-we-wrong

"Yes, that's right, we can kill plants with too much CO2"
Again this is wrong. As the video showed, in a lab they grew the same plants with same amount of water and sunlight each day. In room there was 200 ppm of carbon, on the other there was 800 ppm, and the plants with 800 ppm of CO2 grew 180% faster. Its been proven that the more CO2 a plant has, the faster it grows. That is why this increase in CO2 has lead to making the planet greener.

"The only real problem is that fossil fuels are used quicker than we can find new reserves"

The proven reserves measured in years of current consumption are virtually identical to those a century ago.

"Yes, that's right, we can kill plants with too much CO2 and not enough nitorgen to counter it." In thoery, sure. No evidence of approaching such a problem exists.

+ billions for Fasces for a little honesty about our *readily* available oil supplies...which we are in no danger of running out of...this is not to say that alternative energy sources do not make good *economic* sense - but to limit "fossil fuel" use because of bogus environmental claims is ridiculous.
Greener earth....check
Better crop yields...check
Less harsh winters for many....check

Measured global cooling in the last decade...ohhhh...stick in the mud ruins the dreams of global warming alarmists...drat!

so...as rational people have alwasy said...the earth has a feedback control system to limit out of control CO2...big surprise...man can't destroy earth. <yawn...>

Not news to rational human beings...

why are only the conservatives posting here? I was hoping for some actually criticism by the left...

Burning fossil fuels does indeed lead to the creation of more biomass. This has been well known for quite some time.

@ krellin

Man can't destroy the Earth, but he can make it highly unpleasent for man to live on.

Alright, based on nothing other than my own thoughts, here are my problems:

1) Although plants require CO2, increasing the amount doesn't necessarily mean plants will do better. They've evolved to live in the current atmosphere. Humans require O2, but if you give a person pure oxygen to breathe, things won't end well.

2) Fossil fuels produce more than CO2. These other chemicals are likely very harmful to plants (and people).

3) It would take an astronomical amount of new plants to make up for all the damage than fraking and drilling cause on the environment.

if its been known for such a long time why does green peace claim that we've destroyed almost half of the worlds biomass since the industrial revolution?

Firstly, Green Peace are idiots. Secondly, I don't think they do. Are you sure they don't say we've destroyed half the world's biodiversity?

"1) Although plants require CO2, increasing the amount doesn't necessarily mean plants will do better. They've evolved to live in the current atmosphere. Humans require O2, but if you give a person pure oxygen to breathe, things won't end well."
Plants grow 180% faster in 800 ppm then in 200 ppm.

"3) It would take an astronomical amount of new plants to make up for all the damage than fraking and drilling cause on the environment."
There is very limitted evidence suggesting that fraking negatively impacts the environment and its far cleaner then lots of alternatives, like coal.

"2) Fossil fuels produce more than CO2. These other chemicals are likely very harmful to plants (and people). "
Fair enough, but they produce them at a limited rate, like there is a reason we only hear discussion about CO2...

"Firstly, Green Peace are idiots. Secondly, I don't think they do. Are you sure they don't say we've destroyed half the world's biodiversity?"
I can't fully remember what they said, it might have been that.

@ Fasces: "There is very limitted evidence suggesting that fraking negatively impacts the environment."

It releases huge amounts of methane.

I haven't done any research on Fraking. but the economist says: "Greens claim that fracking pollutes the air and groundwater, but the evidence suggests that any such pollution is limited. "
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21572769-if-barack-obama-wants-cleaner-world-and-richer-america-he-should-allow-natural-gas

Humans require O2, but if you give a person pure oxygen to breathe, things won't end well.

Really? Uh....check again. Pure O2 is just fine...just keep cigarettes and lighters away.

"Man can't destroy the Earth, but he can make it highly unpleasent for man to live on. " So the scare mongers keep telling me...

Have you looked at China recently? The smog from factories and cars is so bad that it is borderline toxic in some regions, I personally don't care if plants can live on the planet if I can't. I don't have time now, but later on I will go find some backing for this.

Why did no one told I was promoted to a conservative. Would've opened a beer or two at least.

"The fact is we are not running out of resources because we are more efficiently using them as technology increases."

...and...

"The proven reserves measured in years of current consumption are virtually identical to those a century ago. "


My point exactly. If we didn't invest in new tech to more efficiently use the fuel, we would find our time running shorter. But there will come a time when we have squeezed out the maximum energy an ounce of oil can give us. The IT world is already seeing it happen with microporcessors speeds, layers, and number of channels. We were in the technology curve (a tangent curve with progress on the X and time on the Y) where little time was passing but great technological leaps were occuring. Now we have passed to the point where tech is slowing over time. So the IT world has started looking at new tech. We did this with solid state drives for a start. Now we are looking at new ways of creating processors that are of a totally different paradigm then the current layered wafer technology.

Unless we find new tech and new energy sources, we will start seeing oil reserves deplete eventually. I doubt it will be in this century, but it will happen in mankinds future eventually.

Re: plants and CO2:

It is possible to help increase the growth of some plants with extra CO2, under controlled conditions, inside of greenhouses. What you fail to take into account is that once you increase one substance that plants need, you automatically increase their requirements for other substances.

Plants cannot live on CO2 alone. They get their bulk from more solid substances like water and organic matter. This organic matter comes from decomposing plants and animals or from man made fertilizers. It is a simple task to increase water and fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed greenhouse but what about doing it in the open air, throughout the entire Earth?

CO2 enhanced plants will need extra water both to maintain their larger growth as well as to compensate for greater moisture evaporation as the heat increases. Where will it come from? Rainwater is not sufficient for current agriculture and the storms generated by the climate change result in a greater volume of rainwater that does not seep into the soil but flows off to rivers and lakes (water takes time for absorbtion and a deluge doesn't allow for it) and with it, it takes much needed nutrients and top soil, starving the plants of other matter they need to go with the increased CO2. In the green house, you can fertilize for the larger plants and water for them without over watering them. Nature doesn't do that.

Smog over a city does not equal destroyign the world. turn the factories off tomorrow, and it will clear up.

Just like standing int he smoke of a bon fire in my back yard is locally unpleasant for about a 10 foot radius..and then it's fine.

Yes, we should use COMMON sense with pollution-producing activities...of course...no rational human would say otherwise. Be we do it in economically viable and rational ways over time...but just try to eliminate the largest source of energy we have, as some wish to do.
You can not destroy the earth...and you can *barely* damage it, really, as it is a hell of a lot more resiliant than arrogant humans give it credit for. witness...the Gulf of MExico....THRIVING once again...

And no, krellin, pure O2 is not fine for the human body.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question493.htm

An excerpt that lays it out for you:

Now what would happen if you breathed 100 percent oxygen? In guinea pigs exposed to 100 percent oxygen at normal air pressure for 48 hours, fluid accumulates in the lungs and the epithelial cells lining the alveoli. In addition, the pulmonary capillaries get damaged. A highly reactive form of the oxygen molecule, called the oxygen free radical, which destroys proteins and membranes in the epithelial cells, probably causes this damage. In humans breathing 100 percent oxygen at normal pressure, here's what happens:
•Fluid accumulates in the lungs.
•Gas flow across the alveoli slows down, meaning that the person has to breathe more to get enough oxygen.
•Chest pains occur during deep breathing.
•The total volume of exchangeable air in the lung decreases by 17 percent.
•Mucus plugs local areas of collapsed alveoli -- a condition called atelectasis. The oxygen trapped in the plugged alveoli gets absorbed into the blood, no gas is left to keep the plugged alveoli inflated, and they collapse. Mucus plugs are normal, but they are cleared by coughing. If alveoli become plugged while breathing air, the nitrogen trapped in the alveoli keeps them inflated.

The astronauts in the Gemini and Apollo programs breathed 100 percent oxygen at reduced pressure for up to two weeks with no problems. In contrast, when 100 percent oxygen is breathed under high pressure (more than four times that of atmospheric pressure), acute oxygen poisoning can occur with these symptoms:
•Nausea
•Dizziness
•Muscle twitches
•Blurred vision
•Seizures/convulsions

So pure O2 at one atmosphere of pressure can be and is toxic to a human. Only at low pressure is it tolerable and then only for a limited period of time.

I went to China last summer, and the scariest thing I have ever seen was the sky in Beijing. The sun literally just looked like an orange moon, because there was so much smog you could look at the sun without it hurting your eyes.

I'm not going to claim that their is no such thing as climate change, I think that alone is proof enough that there is, however the developed world, on average, tends to be much more environmentally friendly then the undeveloped world. (and according to the video that we start becoming more environmentally friendly after our per capita GDP hits $4,000, but I have no way of confirming if that is when the change starts occuring)

My problem with the environmentalist movement is they want to curb economic growth to save the environment, I don't think that is necessary and that because as technology grows, its now coming less and less to the expense of the environment, that we should just continue to let growth happen and the market will sort it out.

"My point exactly. If we didn't invest in new tech to more efficiently use the fuel, we would find our time running shorter. But there will come a time when we have squeezed out the maximum energy an ounce of oil can give us. The IT world is already seeing it happen with microporcessors speeds, layers, and number of channels. We were in the technology curve (a tangent curve with progress on the X and time on the Y) where little time was passing but great technological leaps were occuring. Now we have passed to the point where tech is slowing over time. So the IT world has started looking at new tech. We did this with solid state drives for a start. Now we are looking at new ways of creating processors that are of a totally different paradigm then the current layered wafer technology."
Look at the price system in economics. Eventually, as you said, oil will be too expensive and not worth it, by then solar will be a more affordable and efficent alternative and we will use that instead.

"It is possible to help increase the growth of some plants with extra CO2, under controlled conditions, inside of greenhouses. What you fail to take into account is that once you increase one substance that plants need, you automatically increase their requirements for other substances."
Ummm no, Plants with excess CO2 need less sunlight, as explained by Ridley if you watched the video. They need more water, but that is simply because they are bigger, but its not like we have a shortage of rain on the planet, and in fact the amount of rainfall (according to Ridley) per year has increased over the last 50 years.

Actually, I think economic growth can go hand in hand with new tech and environmental responsibility. Imagine developing a means to affordably produce solar cells without the caustic chemicals that are currently used to create them. Imagine new capacitor technology that makes charging them and the amount of power they store per size and weight rival a 350-400 mile fuel tank (say 20 gallons) and fill up at the pump time? Engines that could generate the torque equal to a performance V8? All for a price that makes the "eCorvette" comparable to a base model Corvette. We need to kick the business world in the ass and get them to see what could be: a future with a better environment and them profitig from it.

@ krellin

The important thing is to look at the world from a human perspective, which is where a lot of environmentalists fail. "Ah ha", they will say, "If we cut carbon use by 80% we can slow global warming and significantly improve the lives of 10 million people!". They forget that by cutting carbon use by 80% the economic damage will make life significantly worse for a billion (all numbers in this example are made up). As a result they end up looking, far too often, like total prats.

Global warming is happening. It is being measured and the trend is clear. The extent of future warming is not clear (the models are a bit shit as there are too many variables) but prudence dictates we should probably account for an increase of a few degrees or so. Whether this is man made or not is entirely irrelevant. Even if we stopped industry tomorrow we couldn't take the CO2 out of the atmosphere to stop global warming. If it isn't man made stopping industry wouldn't have any effect on it anyway.

Whether it is by nature or man or both, it would be madness not to invest in ways of adapting to it or engineering solutions to counter it. The Earth's climate has always changed, and always will change, and invariably this tends to make life hard for species who rather enjoyed the status quo. The only real difference in the modern age is our ability to do something about it.

I didn't say *all* other substances. You actually just confirmed what I said. Plants with more CO2 need more water and more nitrogen (found in plant food/fertilizer). Those are "other substances". I specifically did *not* include sunlight in the list nor did I say they need more of everything.

And the rain we have as a result of climate change is not helping. Did you not read where I said the deluges do more damage than good. They wash away the nutrients into sotrm sewers, creeks, and rivers. So the plants on the edges of the creeks and rivers will be more lush, but the ones on the hillsides will suffer because the rain didn't slowly soak into their soil and it washed away their precious nitrogen rich soil.

Mind, I am not a climate change freak. I see it happening, btu don't believe we have to panic and do all this stupid shit. We just need to be aware and prepare because it will happen anyhow with or without us. It has in the past and will int he future. The Earth always recovers. Look at Mt. Saint Helens. The new growth from the ash is incredible. It is nature adapting and using what it has. Life will find a way. Barring us making it toxic by killing everything with a nuclear war, it will find and way and we will continue. And even if we destroy it all, it will eventually recover (Pierre Boulle got that right in Planet of the Apes).

Fair enough, but overall we can see a 20% increase in biomass in the early over the last 30 years, that was the main point of this thread. That we aren't destroying biomass, were increasing it.