Myth: Carbon dioxide is a "plant food."

[sweetwater5s9]

Hawky lost that one...

[Byteryder]

Jesus, Hawks.  You are undeniably the stupidest fucking lame assed Libber on this board.  Bar none.

[DaBoz]

Well we now know for sure that 1965hawk does not beleive that CO2 is plant food,,, and that is good.

[chuck_curtis]

Anyone who thinks an increasing CO2 environment does not promote greater plant growth is definitely a denying flat-earther, and must get her education from stupid warmer blogs.

[DaBoz]

Why not start one on

MYTH: Hillary,, 3 lesbians trysts or 4

[Jim]

Someone--jivin' jim, I presume--posted a favourite denier claim that's based on the logical fallacy of special pleading. The argument carefully avoids admitting that human activity caused an increase of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere that's causing global warming. But, instead, argues that the increased greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is actually a good thing, because it's beneficial to the planet's flora.
 
 
Sometimes its more beneficial to point out the good parts of flying rather than focusing on the few crashes that take place.
(how's that for an analogy?)

[DaBoz]

It took that nutcase 6 years to figure out that putting CO2 into his Scott spreader did not make his lawn grow.

[sweetwater5s9]

 For only "pennies a day," any greenhouse owner can produce CO2 to help increase plant yields in their greenhouses. That's the message on CO2 generators sold by greenhouse supply companies across the United States and Canada. "1,500 ppm [of carbon dioxide] can be achieved... these generators automatically provide the carbon dioxide needed to meet maximum growing potential for only pennies a day," the ad says.

View it yourself in this picture taken from a greenhouse supply magazine:














CO2 generators "improve plant quality" and "increase production." They're made in the USA and run on propane or natural gas, turning fossil fuels into carbon dioxide.

Why does this work to radically improve plant growth, health and yields? Because -- are you ready for the truth? -- CO2 is a plant NUTRIENT.



Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040890_greenhouses_carbon_dioxide_generators_plant_growth.html#ixzz3Vmh3CNJl[/COLOR]]http://www.naturalnews.com/040890_greenhouses_carbon_dioxide_generators_plant_growth.html#ixzz3Vmh3CNJl

[jackbp]

Is hawks fucking retarded??

That was freshmen biology in High School....You know....The CO2 Cycle....Jesus.....You'd HAVE to practice to be that stupid.....

[sweetwater5s9]

Nothing like going "green" with CO2...   

[D2D]

Proof 1965hawks will believe anything, no matter how ridiculous, the liberal sewer stream media(Democrat party) tells him!

Mindless servility!

[1965hawks]

jivin' jim: " The Rain Forrest is Greener because of the added CO2 in the atmosphere." [sic]

A bogus argument used by those who attempt to rationalise the detrimental effect of anthropogenic global warming, caused increased amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) being released  by the burning of fossil fuels, would have us believe that the burning of fossil fuels is actually good(!) for the environment. This sophomoric conjecture is based on simple and appealing (but flawed) logic: If plants need CO2 for growth, then more of it should be better; more carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere would cause Earth's vegetation--especially agriculture!--to become more abundant. So even if burning fossil fuels has increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, plants need CO2 for growth. So more of it in the atmosphere is beneficial.

 http://www.skepticalscience.com/Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-is-not-good-for-plants.html

That argument, of course, is sophomoric--an argument that, on its face, appears plausible, but, in actuality, is misleading and fallacious.
Carbon dioxide is not a "plant food." In other words, increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't tantamount to abundant plant life. More carbon dioxide is not necessarily good for plants. On the contrary, too high a concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is actually detrimental to plant life.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

Now go back and read the cut-and-paste jivin' jim used as evidence. The article is actually is about deforestation. Evidently you and your supporters missed The article clearly states that forests like the Amazon rain forest are essential for "soaking up excess greenhouse gases." Those "excess greenhouse gases," of course, are produced by the burning of burning fossil fuels and also--as the article points out-- by burning immense tracts of forests during deforestation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2891432/Carbon-dioxide-emissions-help-tropical-rainforests-grow-faster-Study-shows-trees-absorb-greenhouse-gas-expected.html

 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/











[JUSTIFY]
[/JUSTIFY]
[JUSTIFY]
[/JUSTIFY]