Some scientist wrote a paper, been about 2 weeks ago, saying we
actually need MORE CO2 not less. He mentions how the greenhouse effect
is what allows life to exist on Earth. He mentions how reducing it
more and more with all these laws will actually be a bad idea.

He seemed very sure of this, was wondering if any truth to this?

Don't we need a "defined" amount of CO2?

In other words, having a goal of getting rid of ALL CO2 would NOT be
good.

Agree? Discussion?

On Mar 21, 12:21 am, Bob Brown . wrote:
Some scientist wrote a paper, been about 2 weeks ago, saying we
actually need MORE CO2 not less. He mentions how the greenhouse effect

To wreck the planet even more quickly than we are already doing. Yes
thats a great idea.
Can you provide the name of this alleged more CO2 campaigning
"scientist" then?
(or did you invent them)

is what allows life to exist on Earth. He mentions how reducing it
more and more with all these laws will actually be a bad idea.

We cannot realistically decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The best we can hope for at present is to gradually slow the rate of
increase and maybe if we are clever stabilise it somewhere below
700ppm in the future. That would be about 2x the pre-industrial
level..

He seemed very sure of this, was wondering if any truth to this?

That eliminating all the CO2 is a bad idea. Yes. How would plants
photosynthesise if we did that.

Don't we need a "defined" amount of CO2?

In other words, having a goal of getting rid of ALL CO2 would NOT be
good.

Apart frpm a few paranoid lying dittoheads who put up these strawmen
arguements there is no-one in the world trying to eliminate CO2
entirely.

Regards,
Martin Brown

"Bob Brown" . wrote news
Some scientist wrote a paper, been about 2 weeks ago, saying we
actually need MORE CO2 not less. He mentions how the greenhouse effect
is what allows life to exist on Earth. He mentions how reducing it
more and more with all these laws will actually be a bad idea.

He seemed very sure of this, was wondering if any truth to this?

Don't we need a "defined" amount of CO2?

In other words, having a goal of getting rid of ALL CO2 would NOT be
good.

Agree? Discussion?

Human body contains different minerals. Amongs them is 20% of C and 0.2% of
S. Both of them are good for people and plants. Both of them partially
dissapear. But volkanoes supply fresh amounts. What people should do in such
situation:
1. Sit, cry and waite for volcano eruption (or cosmic cataclism)
2. To mine (The same is with the salt. We must transfer it back from the
oceans)

Up to now people did big error by lowering SO2 content. Now try to do the
next.
S*