What begins often as a breezy stroll through nature can sometimes end in an insatiable itch, a rash of red dots and a mess of oozing blisters. Those who've needed treatment for a poison ivy rash are not likely to forget the experience and are forever on the lookout for the glossy, three-leafed plants that provoke an allergic reaction in about 85 per cent of the population.Read full article here.
In fact, new research suggests we should all be on our toes as the plant is growing like never before. According to a study published in the July 2007 issue of Weed Science, high levels of carbon dioxide linked to climate change is providing ideal growing conditions for poison ivy.
Note: Knowledge Driven Revolu... CBC article In Depth: P... here
Stumble It!
This is a perfect example of journalists doing bad science, and the public getting duped because of its lack of science knowledge.
Notice how the 'experiment' says they used carbon dioxide 'at natural levels'. Gee, poison ivy grown in carbon dioxide that is the same as that found in nature produced bigger plants...can anybody tell me whats wrong with THAT experiment?
There have been VERY few controlled experiments on plant growth under increased carbon dioxide, and yet because of one or two controlled experiments those 'skeptics' have trotted out the argument that more CO2 is a perfectly wonderful thing because plants grow better. Problem is, they don't, or at least there is no evidence that 'they' do. In fact, one researcher started a think tank funded by big oil all because of one experiment on orange trees.
From that think tank has come numerous articles in papers everywhere that make even the insane claim that increased CO2 is responsible for the massive increase in plant growth over the past forty years. It had nothing to do with chemicals, the 'greeen' revolution, control and eradication of pests, water and irrigation control or anything else-it was all that wonderful CO2.
Unfortunately, its all horseshit. In fact, the types of plants grown as crops CAN"T metabolize increased levels of CO2 AT ALL. So yes, SOME plants, MAY do better, but not the ones we use for food. And of course these plants which have been experimented on are in controlled conditions,meaning that there is no interaction of anything else. So MAYBE SOME plants MAY grow better with increased CO2 but up to what point? And what about when combined with NO2 or any of the other things in the atmosphere?
The science is now at the prepubescent stage where scientists can barely even make hypotheses on CO2 levels on plants, however, all kinds of predictions have come out. As mentioned, this is the first 'scary' one, but I've seen far far more media talking about this as a 'positive' thing, when its simply not known. And of course whats good for plants isn't necessarily good for us.
About the only good thing about this is that pot growers will be the most aggressive studiers of this, and by the time its legal we'll have much better data (and more pot).
-Max Planck<br />
<br />
how this is all just wonderful. Oil companies have deep pockets,you think its
a surprise that books and videos are now all over the place by authors you've
never heard of talking about how wonderful more CO2 is?
No 'optimal' level for fir trees has EVER been established simply because
they take too long to grow and experiment with. Second, far more likely is
that whatever effect is seen is not due to CO2, but to TEMPERATURE, which is
also a correlative.
Next, simply because a forest grows doesn't mean anything about either. If
I remove all the grass from my front lawn, the flowers next to it will spread
into where the grass USED to be, all because of the land is there, is available,
and isn't being used by anything else. So stating that because there are lots
of temperate trees around must mean they did well back when the earth was
warmer makes no sense.
And then there is this: "We conclude that climatic warming will influence the
physiological processes of dormancy and cold hardiness development in
Douglas-fir growing in the relatively mild temperate region of western
Oregon, reducing bud burst and shoot growth." That's from a UN study done
in 1998. When research contradicts itself then it is definitely worth looking
closer at. The worst perpetrator of the 'aerial fertilizer' theory is CO2Science,
which, like I said, is funded by oil companies. They feature a study on fir
trees that says that they MAY see evidence that Fir trees hold moisture better
with more CO2. But they don't say it DOES, just maybe, and in that
experiment all they did was pump more CO2 into a section of forest for a
season and then look at the trees.
That's pretty irresponsible science. Different years have completely
difference atmospheric conditions, so any difference can equally be attributed
to temparature changes, moisture and precipitation, infestation outbreaks,
you name it. So once again, bad science leads to bad conclusions, and even
worse policy.
---
"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change."
-Max Planck