Hawk, that's like their argument against increasing CO2 increasing the rate of plant growth. The Global Alarmists say "But the other nutrients limit plants, such as water, iron, nitrogen and what have you, so giving more CO2 won't help". In many places that is true. But finding an exception doesn't generally mean more CO2 is not a great plant booster.
Greenhouse agriculturalists pay for fuel to burn to heat their glasshouses and enrich the CO2 level because they get a better harvest. They make more money from the increased growth. Out in the wild, plenty of plants are limited by CO2. Give them more, they grow faster.
It's the same with iron.
When Doomster Alarmists make arguments as they do regarding iron, one can conclude they really are not too bright, or they simply are talking their books, which is hardly scientific. It shows their arguments are generally hopeless. If they can't get such a thing right, why should we think that "hide the decline" "destroy the data" and their other bung arguments ["Christopher Monckton uses an incorrect title"] about CO2 are valid and prove CO2 is a problem.
Mqurice |
