http://www.co2science.org/subject/g/subject_g.php
It really doesn't matter what he says. The earth's temperature has gone down over the last decade plus, while the CO2 level has increased. There is no correlation between the two. Even though I agree with his many aspects and findings, it is still much to do about nothing.
And Eskimo's have 50 words to describe snow (actually they don't really it's an urban myth) but my point is, so what, AGW is about Co2 causing the planet to warm which is and will cause sea level to rise and weather pattern to change, who cares if it's a plant food. That has been known for years tomato greenhouses often use enriched Co2 atmospheres to help with plant growth.
Supposed experts like Idso who say things like this are little better than stage magicians trying to redirect your attention while they make the rabbit disappear.
Try asking Idso if he has 1 way in which (obeying the rules of science) Co2 is not a greenhouse gas or 1 in which a warming planet will not have a rising sea level. He won't have 1 little own 55.
Sadly deniers often try to quote periods in the distant past when Co2 was much higher and plant life flourished and was more wide spread, I say sadly, because quite obviously plants were much more wide spread because in most of these periods the planet was much warmer, had no glacial ice and sea levels were much higher for the same reason.
Co2 would benefit many plants and we may need that as we will need to build a lot of barriers to try and keep the sea out. Of course if you live in a place were precipitation drops due to an increase in temperature the extra Co2 may not be much help either, but I imagine Idso is not going to talk about that either.
So what? No climate scientist has ever denied the role CO2 plays in plant physiology and atmospheric chemistry.
I did a little research project with his father, Sherwood, when he was with the USDA - before Exxon helped him start the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (a Denier non-profit and a way for Sherwood to make sure that his idiot sons had gainful employment).
antarcticice is right. It is a shell game to divert attention away from the real issue.
This is not a genuine question. You want to talk to us about this Dr. Idso, who is NOT a scientist, and provide a link to a fossil-fuel-industry serving and funded anti-science blog, filled with outrageous lies and disinformation, not learn something new about climate science.
http://www.desmogblog.com/craig-idso
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?tit...
To learn about the real science, try these links by and about bonafide top climate scientists:
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://www.newscientist.com/topic/climat...
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index...
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08...
... ... ... ...
knows 55 ways in which Co2 benefits plant life and improves the biosphere.
http://www.co2science.org/subject/g/subject_g.php
