...who don't know anything about the carbon cycle. Or maybe looked up the carbon cycle in their 14-year-old daughter's high school biology textbook and were like, "Oh, more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means more photosynthesis, awesome!" Which would actually be awesome if not for progressive nitrogen limitation. Why don't we just fertilize the crap out of everything? Well we pretty much do, and as a result we feed people (good), but we use such excess amounts of nutrients that outflow into streams and rivers causes delicious eutrophication, anoxia and big dead zones. Not to mention blue baby syndrome or other direct impacts on human health as a result of high nitrate concentrations in streamwater (we regulate this in the US, but not in many other nations with fewer economic resources or less understanding of the downstream effects of agriculture). And we do not fertilize forests, because they do not feed us. The forests and oceans can absorb some of the excess CO2 we throw up there, but it isn't 100% and there are some great studies whose results indicate that the carbon uptake capacity of oceans and terrestrial vegetation are declining (Angert 2005 PNAS, Piao 2007 Nature, Magnani 2007 Nature, Falkowski 2000 Science, Carney 2007 PNAS) ...you want more? I HAVE WAY MORE PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE MOTHERFUCKERS.
I'm actually impressed that Jacoby could only find three mistakes in the entire report, two of which seem to be issues with vague phrasing (I clicked through to the articles, which awesomely enough, are also op-ed pieces that don't cite anything). Here is a link to the flaming pile itself:
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2010/03/03/gore_still_hot_on_his_doomsday_rhetoric/
Love, Rose
No comments:
Post a Comment