Dry ice, solid Co2, is obtained through very simple fractional distillation. Every gas has a different freezing or liquid to gas, melting point.
There was a time when our freezers, kept our ice cream from melting, just through the presence of dry ice.
Dry ice placed on fallow ground in glass houses, would remove most pest species?
Even the extremely hardy cockroach, can't breathe pure Co2 and survive, even at hibernation temperatures.
And intense cold, assists the soil to rid itself of some unfriendly pathogens, and aids the conversion of vegetable/animal waste into safe compost.
If you were to lay a few dozen blocks of dry ice inside and through your house, just before you go on holiday? When you returned, say two weeks later, there wouldn't be a live bug left to bite you or Fido.
Forget the chemicals and their residue?
Concentrated Co2 could be piped into a greenhouse, post pollination, where it would, as alluded to in the article, assist plant growth, all while eliminating predatory pests.
We could make better use of dry ice in the transport industry. Not too many bugs would survive and live on to become feral pests, if containers, shipping holds etc, were routinely stacked with blocks of dry ice.
If you aim three different coloured lasers at a particular point, that spot will almost immediately reach sub zero temperatures. [QUI]
Perhaps we could utilise this technology, to make dry ice at home.
And wouldn't some of that be handy, when the next summer storm takes out the power, and the food in the fridge starts to spoil?
Yes perhaps a little more Co2, in solid form, would be good for us?
Rhrosty.

Curmudgeon,

The only inroads achieved have been in the area of affecting public perception. Right-wing think tanks funded by vested interests target this area. It's all about protecting the status quo.

Peer review is important...I get the impression that this article is attempting to diminish its role in promoting good practice.

...and what is it about the "skeptic" camp who don't seem to know which tack to take..."There's NO such thing as AGW, (but if there is, then its obviously good for us)"

If I was you guys, I'd pick a trajectory and stick to it.

CatMack haven't you noticed the three articles, written by students attending the Do Ha Ha picnic, in the last couple of days?

All these articles written by kids. I wonder if they are trying to justify the money wasted on their trip, or are simply misguided disciples of the new religion.

I wonder if the adults are backing away from having their name associated too deeply with global warming? Perhaps they sense a waining star, that will only harm, rather than enhance the careers involved with it, hence less articles except for the hangers on.

Rhrosty where did you find that lot? It is as out of date as a T model Ford. Do try to keep up mate. It has been snowing everywhere, the ice is growing again.

As for rain forest expansion, we had best go sharpen the axe. They are difficult things to get a feed from. It takes 25 acres of them to feed a man, where as 25 men can be fed of one acre of intensive agriculture. Yes they are pretty, but only in their place.

Interestingly, satellite evidence tells us that there are over twice as many trees in Oz now, than at white settlement. That is expanding rapidly, as old farmers watch their properties go back to bush, when maintenance of them becomes too hard, & kids today won't work that hard for too little return.

How about another helping of bark stew mate?

The same Spiritual Philosopher wrote these lines in 2008 while simultaneously describing the then world situation (of which he was acutely aware at a feeling level) as easily the worst in human history.

The current pseudo-system is no longer tolerable - and it never was viable. Nevertheless, those who are currently in power have not yet become entirely inclined to deal with the signs of global systemic breakdown. Many continue to pretend, for example, that - even while the Earth is daily becoming more and more overwhelmingly polluted - there is some necessary (and action-preventing) controversy to be engaged relative to whether global warming is a reality or not (or, otherwise, humanly caused or not). Nevertheless, the evidence is now irrefutable - the Earth IS being polluted, always more and more, by HUMAN causes.

The human causes of Earth-pollution (which results in global pollution, global warming, and extreme weather) are a global projection of the politically and corporately propagandized and controlled pattern of individual self-indulgence in the "good-life" of un-regulated and boundless consumerism. Which everywhere resullts in disease, psychological extremes, unbearable stress-patterns, and every mode of otherwise avoidable suffering and agony and casual industrial scale death.

Indeed, altogether, the present-time, and future threatening global and collective situation is both dark and insane - a global madhouse of mutual threats, and whole nations in clans of tribalized power, competing with one another like rival street gangs, always "protecting" nothing more than their will to never-ending self-indulgence and self-glorification.

Such by the way is the world-view that both Quadrant and the IPA promotes, while all the time pretending otherwise. And simultaneously bemoaning the collapse of old-time Western "values" and its now archaic entirely tribalistic religion.

He says "Dr Idso's survey is there for all to read. 'Has it been peer-reviewed?' you ask. No, he tells us.

So why not?

Aitkin himself admits "Peer review ... is effectively a statement that the paper in question looks interesting and has no obvious faults."

That's half true. _Sometimes_, it is more than that.

Meanwhile, given the sort of nonsense that scientists (particularly, perhaps, those wedded to a particular point of view) are capable of producing (see *), peer review is a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for a paper to deserve to be taken seriously.

(*) see http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/mathematical_analysis_of_roy_spencers_climate_model

catmack's comment about censorship and restriction on freedom of speech is part of the Zeitgeist that accompanies this current government and the global lie of AGW.

catmack, he/she/it, fits right in with the Finkelstein mindset that the yobs, the punters, the hoi poloi aren't up to intellectually understanding the CRISIS of AGW and so must be censored in both what they say and what they hear other people say.

It is not the first time this arrogant attitude has been here; there was a major dummy spit some time ago:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7580

But then Hamilton has form:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/29880.html

And this is the point; AGW supporters are losing this argument/debate despite vast, disproportionate and obscene funding and political patronage, general media support etc, because the science of AGW is WRONG.

That is the point; but being unreasonable, being believers AGW supporters cannot accept that and now are reverting to type; censorship and oppression.

catmack's comment is typical.