Another one!
The collective knowledge of decades of work is surpassed by an industry hack with nice simple theories, easily explained.
Once again a whole profession is wrong, misguided or corrupt...their subject "too complex"...and yet the hacks can confidently say they are wrong. Pity Bankers weren't treated like this!
Plenty of "truthiness" but it aint science.

Yes the biosphere is in no trouble at all...in the long term.
Humans however have occupied every continent and are rapidly using all the cheap resources. Sure, the desertification of Victoria will be balanced by more rainfall elsewhere...but it takes many decades for soil to grow (its a living thing) and nutrient cycles to be established. We have this little problem that human food is on about to 30 day lead time...ecosystems are more like 30 years.
Don't be fooled by red herrings.
BTW. I believe we have to adapt: almost too late for mitigation now.

Gee I would like to see Pierre and Arjay and the rest of the team sealed in a room with just CO2! If its that "harmless" a gas they might not notice that to live they need oxygen and all of the other gases that make up the atmosphere.

Guys it is about the balance of each gas as to how effective or detrimental any one component is to the ecosphere! Nitrogen occurs naturally in the atmosphere and is inert and harmless but ask any diver what happens to their internal ecosystem with excessive quantity.

It is demonstrable and reproducible SCIENCE that increased CO2 in an atmosphere (laboratory controlled environment) increases heat absorption. Therefore quite a justifiable conclusion that an increase of CO2 in the "free range" climate is going to have an effect.

Perhaps Arjay and Pierre could explain to the Olympics organizers in Vancouver that the fact that they have no snow for the first time in living history at this time of the year is just part of the "natural cycle" and nothing to do with GW

Sorry I forgot...the IPCC has conspired to ruin the Winter Olympics just to prove their point and further create alarmist reaction :)

Peter King makes the absolutely simplistic assumption that a CO2 experiment conducted in a laboratory is proof that anthropogenic CO2 is the main driver of global warming, if any. The world's atmosphere is subjected to far more influences (solar and oceanic for starters, and some yet to be identified) than that of a controlled laboratory. The IPCC has been unable to validate its climate models as being representative of actual climate change. Satellite temperature measurements, proxy temperature data, and reviews of IPCC surface temperature data after the Climategate scandal, reveal that there has been no man-made global warming, let alone any measurable global warming since 1970, despite CO2 emissions continuing to increase over that period.

It's disappointing that an associate professor of anything could write such drivel. The impacts of climate change over the next decades and century on arable land, food security and ecosystems can't be passed over and ignored for the sake of arable lands, food security and ecosystems in thousands and tens of thousands of years time, even if Pierre Jutras could convincingly show that adding lot's of CO2 to the atmosphere now would have a beneficial impacts so far in the future.

Where much denialist misdirection is based around very short term changes and trying to pretend they represent real climate trends, this author attempts to direct attention to very large changes that occured in the deep geological past and to make what's occurring now seem insignificant or even essential in the far future.

This is pure denialist distraction. CO2 is necessary, essential to the climatic balance as well as to life on Earth, but rapidly increasing the amounts of it to levels not seen for 500,000,000 years will have seriously damaging consequences. That's the conclusion of all the institutions that study climate, conclusions supported by every peak science body on the planet.

I can't believe Pierre can even take himself seriously on this.

Arjay: "earth will not warm as much a as Al Gore says it will in the next 5 years."

I wasn't aware Al Gore had made an exact prediction on what the temperature would be in 5 years. Maybe you can provide a link to it? It is a bit much to ask people here to place a bet if we don't know what we are betting on, after all.

rstuart: "Wikipedia is not a reference source itself of course, but most articles a list of [references] at the bottom"
Hasbeen: "Come on rstuart, you can't quote wikipedia, & then complain about others giving unsubstantiated opinions"

Wrong three times in one sentence. Impressive effort. Herbert Stencil asked for references, I directed him to those at the bottom of Wikipedia articles, not the article itself. Wikipedia isn't unsubstantiated - it cites references and lots of them, which is why I directed Herbert there. And finally I didn't quote a single word from Wikipedia.

rstuart: "The main point of his article, which is summed up in the last sentence is perfectly valid."
phoenix94: "Your faith has you bound to the IPCC doctrine."

What? That conclusion of the article was if anything against the IPCC doctrine, and I agreed with it. The point I was trying to make is in using spin and miss information to bolster his argument, the author has done the reverse - weakened it. He has also undermined whatever credibility the title of "Associate Professor" might of given him. Obviously, I didn't do a very good job of making my point as you, and for that matter Hasbeen went and did exactly the same thing.

For what it is worth, Taswegian nailed problem with the article. It is perfectly true that earth has had more extreme climates in the past. The geologists in particular seem very keen on pointing this out. What they omit to say is those climates would wipe our current civilisation out. So the point, while true is irrelevant. I don't know why they keep raising it.

Raycom,

I was not suggesting that a lab experiment proved AGW but in the context of this article to blithely claim that CO2 is "good" and doesn't cause warming is simply not true.

I note you don't address the visual and tangible evidence of Vancouver...nor of the record unprecedented blizzards inundating the US only a little further south. This is exactly the WEATHER response predicted by "real" climatologists to AGW.

I don't know what you guys need for proof; seems that scientific facts are not enough...perhaps as we are approaching Easter there might be a papal epiphany that you can all agree with!