Is it right to suggest that Plants can really change our climate? Will this change be a good thing or a bad thing? Will this climate chage have negative or postive impacts on other species of life apart from hum,an beings? I read an article recently in the UK's Daily Telegraph to suggest that if everyone planted 30 plants in their garden, we could improve the decline of our environment and improve the climate.
Air pollution is an issue that few are ready to tackle. In Japan, however, Toyota is researching horticultural solutions to address this matter. They believe that certain enhanced species of plant life may contribute to improving the environment. How have the British government reacted to these claims?

Hi traveller 123,
I really don’t know where to start with this, let me just say that this planet has continually gone through climatic change since life first emerged.

Having said that Mother Nature has never in the past been subjected to the vast amounts of carbon monoxide and CFC’S that are pumped into her atmosphere. This in conjunction with the decimation of the rain forests which are the lungs of our eco-system have triggered this response.

Multi-national conglomerates are the root cause of approximately 93% of all pollution on this planet. They have no ethics, and they don’t care who knows it, they are a power unto themselves. Into this category you can also place politicians, bankers and stock traders. This group of trough feeders ease the way for multi-national conglomerates to do as they please in the quest of profit.

If you need confirmation of this fact note that the UK government will actively pursue a dole claimant who has tried to get more money than they are due.. This same government has refused to bring to justice the bankers and stock market traders who have left our country with billions of pounds of debt.

The whole carbon footprint scenario is a nonsense created by multi-national companies to make society feel that they are somehow responsible for global warming. It is spin doctor stuff and must be viewed as such. Only they can change what is taking place and that is like telling a junkie to quit the habit, it isn’t going to happen.

I dislike having to lay this information on your doorstep but you need the know the facts of cause and effect relative to your question.

Toyota are involved in GM crop production, can you see where this is going, its not altruism that drives them its profit.

The Daily Telegraph just jogs along as it always has selling papers.

By all means plant your plants, but unless the rape and destruction of the rain forests is stopped climate change will continue to the point of no return.

Please don’t take offence at this post it was written in the hope that you become aware of how the system works and why it works.

What a complete and utter load of crap, CO has nothing whatsoever to do with so called AGW.
Plants absorb CO2 this is what makes them grow, hence the reason tomato growers increase the CO2 concentration in their greenhouses to about 3 times the current atmospheric level.
Increasing the rain forest will help to reduce the CO2 level a bit as well if it actually matters that much.

Forget the stupid emotional hype, half truths and outright lies from people like Al Gore et al and delve into the science, you will find there is as much evidence against AGW as there is for it and given the scandals that are surrounding some of the scientists and their methods at the moment, the situation is far from certain.

In the early 70's there was great panic that we were heading for a climatic calamity, Why? The scientists were absolutely certain that we were heading for an mini ice age, the science was settled they said.

And you notice that everyone is very careful not to mention the effects of growing human populations.

Hi Granity,
Oh my, I did hit a nerve with you, and to answer with such bile and venom, you are obviously a fully paid up member of the flat earth society.

I will not use words like Crap, stupid and emotional to describe your post. I think it is sad, very sad that you can’t see the wood from the trees that are being cut down in these rain forests that are being decimated.

Humbly suggest that you watch the BBC documentary “A Farm For The Future” to see where our future lies, that is if you can find the time to take your head out of the sand,

Hi Beccabunga
How very true, nobody wants to talk about the explosion of population because it is a vote loser. And so we are back to politics again, nothing changes but the faces and the snouts in the money trough.

uriel13

The mind is like a parachute it is totally unless it is open

No you didn't hit a nerve, I just can't stand all the lies and deceit associated with the greens who seem to put out total misinformation to serve their own ends, whatever they may be. AGW is now discredited due to the behaviour of the leading players concerned and there is so much money to be made by people like Gore out of carbon trading they will do anything to perpetuate the theory. Of course for the likes of Brown and his robbing cronies a very good excuse to raise taxes, and, as for the poorer countries, they see it as a good way of screwing free money out of the so called richer ones.

As to your original post it was totally irrelevant to the original question and quite a different problem CO along with SO2 are pollutants and cleaning them up would not be a particularly bad thing, but saving the rain forest won't do that. CO2 is not a pollutant, life cannot exist without it.

Unfortunately the environmental campaigners do overstate the case quite shockingly in some cases. But they have been doing that all the time, so no surprise there. But the current anti-AGW PR is strongly funded by the oil and heavy industrial lobby, and no surprise what they are up to. They are using the same pseudoscientific tactics as they used when they tried to discredit scientists telling us "tobacco is bad for you", "lead is bad for you" and "asbestos is bad for you". Of course the scientists were right. Why would the oil industry not campaign against a movement trying to restrain their output. Of course they will do that. So don't be fooled by them either.

But if we are neutral about it, and look to what scientists are telling us, then the scientific evidence for AGW is pretty incontrovertible. CO2 is a significant atmospheric insulator, demonstrable by experiments going back 150 years. How can a substantial increase in it not warm us up? Here's a bibliography unaffected by dodgy hacked email science and shrill greenpeace campaigners which will take you through it.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What...l-warming.html

CO2 is a plant fertiliser. So are nitrates. What happens when you put too much nitrate on your fields? Yes it washes into the rivers and sea and creates toxic algal blooms and anoxic dead zones, and kills lots of fish. And we have to process it out of our water supply. The plant fertilisation effect won't take out all the CO2 of an instant. All the CO2 we put in the atmosphere will get washed out in the end. In fact only 40% of what we put out in a single year ends up in the atmosphere at the end of that year. Unfortunately it will take several hundred years to wash it all out, and in the mean time we are at risk of having cooked the place. Too much CO2 will change our climate, and that will be very inconvenient for people who will get flooded out or find they are now living in a desert. They will want to come and move to where you can live, which will be all very costly and frightening to the people who are already there. Think of CO2 reduction as insurance against this happening. CO2 will warm us up, it must do, though precisely how much is not quite clear, because the climate and biological systems are very complex. If it is worth buying flood insurance for your house, it seems to be worth buying climate change insurance for the planet.

Sorry you have been misled by the industrial lobby.

Oh dear, the standard greens reply to a non believer.

Does it not occur to you that you might be being misled by business interests? for example:

As reported by Reuters: The head of the Asian Development Bank (ADP), Haruhiko Kuroda, warned governments that a failure to reach a climate deal in Copenhagen could lead to a collapse of the carbon market, which would hit efforts to deal with climate change make carbon traders very rich.

It helps of course to know that Mr Kuroda is best known in greenie circles for setting up the ADB Advisory Group on Climate Change – chaired by millionaire businessman Rajendra K. Pachauri, part-time chairman of the IPCC.

An interesting member of that Group is Dr Klaus Toepfer, Founding Director, Institute for Advanced Studies Climate, Earth System and Sustainability Sciences and former executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). And it was UNEP, of course, which set up the IPCC – which now has as its part-time chairman millionaire businessman Rajendra K. Pachauri.

One other member is professor Hironori Hamanaka, Chair, Board of Directors, Institute of Global Environmental Strategies (IGES). The IGES claims to be “a research institute that conducts pragmatic and innovative strategic policy research to support sustainable development in the Asia-Pacific region.” It will come as no surprise, therefore, to learn that the organisation works very closely with TERI, whose Director-General is millionaire businessman Rajendra K. Pachauri.

Yet another is Ms Huguette Labelle, also a Board Member of the UN Global Compact organisation, the very same UN to which millionaire businessman Rajendra K. Pachauri belongs. Hilariously, Ms Labelle is Chair of Transparency International, the global civil society organisation “leading the fight against corruption.” TI’s mission “is to create change towards a world free of corruption.”

The Board also includes professor Jeffrey D. Sachs, Director, The Earth Institute at Columbia University. This is the same Earth Institute which set up the Climate-Risk Center, inviting millionaire businessman Rajendra K. Pachauri to become its first Board Chairman.

One other interesting character is Dr. Emil Salim, an adviser to Indonesia’s President on environment and sustainable development issues. But he is also a member of APFED – the Asia-Pacific Forum for Environment and Development. One of its major activities is sponsoring the “Partnership Initiatives for Knowledge Network and Capacity Building” – in conjunction with TERI as a major partner, the Director General of which is millionaire businessman Rajendra K. Pachauri.

And last but not least is Professor Dadi Zhou, Director General (Emeritus) of the Energy Research Institute, which of course is otherwise known as TERI, the Director General of which is millionaire businessman Rajendra K. Pachauri.

No longer, it seems, does Rome hold a pre-eminent position. In this brave new world of climate change and sustainable development, all roads lead to Rajendra K. Pachauri.
Particularly interesting is Dr Pachauri’s connection with the “not-for-profit organisation” TERI. As we learn from its website, this used to stand for Tata Energy Research Institute, but was renamed in The Energy And Resources Institute in 2003. Nothing sinister, I’m sure, in its decision to play down the Tata connection; nor in the fact that Dr Pachauri makes no mention of the fact that he is funded by Tata on his website. And obviously, it is quite normal that TERI makes no disclosure on its website – or in its downloadable annual report (all you get is a pie chart with no figures on it) – about its financial arrangements: the pay scales of its 800 staff members and its esteemed director general are quite rightly hidden from the world’s prying eyes.[/quote]

Or
Last year Mr Gore's venture capital firm loaned a small California firm $75m to develop energy-saving technology.

The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient.

The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants, the New York Times reports. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts.

The move means that venture capital company Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.

Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy as Mr Gore. And few have put as much money behind their advocacy and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.

Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming sceptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world's first "carbon billionaire," profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.

To say nothing of his company GIM which was specifically established to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating Global Warming. The Global Warming crowd has told us that just recently new science emerged confirming the alleged fact that Global Warming is man made. So, ask yourself, why is it that Gore set up his Green money machine three years ago back in 2004? Is it possible Gore knew what the science would say before it was out? And even if not, can an individual who stands to make millions from Global Warming really be trusted as an honest broker on that topic?

I agreed with you that the greens are overstating their case, I even said shockingly. Makes me a good green doesn't it?

Instead I put the sober scientific evidence in front of you, which you just ignored. In response, you give a logically irrelevant spiel on how some people are going to make money out of it. Some people will make money out of it whatever happens.

On 15/12/09 10:26, Granity wrote:
AGW is now discredited due
to the behaviour of the leading players concerned

That's not so. I've read the first 100 of the emails from UEA and a
selection of those pointed at by skeptics. I can't find any evidence
that the conclusions on AGW are wrong. I've had skeptics point out
emails that they claim prove wrongdoing, but reading those emails
doesn't suggest that to me. What the emails do show is that one
particular scientist exaggerated the strength of some evidence on one
occasion, but even without that the evidence supported AGW. Other
scientists called him on it and it wasn't repeated.

The current state of play is that there is definitely a global warming
event taking place, acting over a timescale of 100-150 years and
accelerating. On balance of evidence it is highly probable that some
element of this is anthropogenic, but we don't know how much.



--
Bernard Peek

"echinosum" wrote in message
...


"asbestos is bad for you".

Are you saying that it was bullshit?


--
Mike

The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rneba.org.uk
Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?
www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk

It was no more irrelevant than accusing me of being duped by the oil industry.

I don't, by the way, deny global warming, after all at the start of the 1st millennium we had the Roman warm period, at the start of the 2nd millennium we had the medieval warm period, therefore it's perfectly logical that at the start of the 3rd we should have another warming period. I'm afraid that the case that it's CO2 driven is far from proven.
Frankly with the release of those e-mails that show that the top AGW scientists weren't prepared to allow anyone to check their work and indeed going out of their way to withhold the information needed for those checks, the incestuous peer review system they had instigated and the manipulation of the journals to ensure dissenting papers were not published, even to the extent of getting one of the editors sacked, shows the extent of the duplicity.
The whole thing now smells at best, of badly conducted science, or at the worst, the fraudulent perpetuation of what was originally a reasonable idea, but one that eventually couldn't be substantiated but had been talked up so far by the IPCC that they dare not drop it.

Science is about coming up with a theory, publishing it along with all the data used, and letting other people try and find faults in your work, If they can then the theory may well fall, if they can't then it stands, for now. this procedure has not been followed in this case, hence my scepticism.

No. I said industry's long denial of it was bullshit. Or at least that is what I intended in a typo-free world.

Indeed, so why don't you look at the science then? This emails controversy is only in a small corner affecting only an unclear argument about the natural variability in the climate. It doesn't even matter very much, the science doesn't rely on it. The science showing that CO2 warms the atmosphere goes back 150 years and is really very simple and well-established, before emails even existed, so it has nothing to do with the climate-gate emails. The climatic feedbacks are more complicated - but that's the argument about whether it will be 2 degrees or 6 degrees.

I don't really care whether you have been duped by some PR or not, I don't rest my argument on that point. I rest my argument on the well-established un-email-affected science, which you have not addressed. Once you get the hang of how CO2 warms the atmosphere (much in the same way as putting a jumper on warms you, in fact), and the magnitude of the effect, and how strongly established in science it is, it becomes apparent that "there is no AGW" is really a very extraordinary claim, it requires some rather amazing things to be true, that somehow the climate can cancel out the effect.

The original argument was that the hockey stick proved AGW, that has now been discredited as being produced by cherry picking the data used so as to produce the required curve.
As for the E-Mails It's not what part they are about, it's what lengths they are prepared to go to to prevent anybody from checking their work, even to the illegal act of deleting data that has been requested under the FOI. If they are so afraid of having the worked checked then it's obviously been arrived at by dubious means, or massaged to give the results they want, and their willingness to debase science for political purposes.

Also The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change.

Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control.

William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation, has stated that. “the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.

Something like 80% of NOAA's weather reporting stations do not conform to the specifications laid down for them. mainly due to the proximity of building to the sensor units. As well as the change to digital sensors in the late 70's early 80's they changed over from whitewash to a white bitumen paint for the enclosures which has been demonstrated to raise the recorded temp. by about 0.25deg C, that in itself is half of the supposed dangerous rise in the average temperature, but there is no mention, that I've managed to find, that this has been taken into account.