Geoff of Perth,

I agree that peak oil is a problem but unfortunately it is not going to reduce our emissions of CO2. The know reserves of fossil fuels is 4 to 5 times greater than the amount we can risk burning if we are to keep the increase in global temperatures below 2C.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719?page=2

The idea that "perhaps more CO2 is good for us" reminds me of the amputee who told me he was saving a fortune on shoes

warmair, since humans breathe in air with a concentration of CO2 of ~390 ppm and breathe out air with a CO2 concentration of ~ 4000 ppm, why don't you, Geoff and like minded people solve the problem by holding your breath?

Apparently this is the future for oil extraction:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/athabasca.php

"Because it takes energy to mine and separate oil from the sands, oil sands extraction releases more greenhouse gases than other forms of oil extraction....the equivalent of 86 to 103 kilograms of carbon dioxide for every barrel of crude produced. By comparison, 27 to 58 kilograms of carbon dioxide is emitted in the conventional production of a barrel of crude."

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/canadian-oil-sands/essick-photography

(No doubt all that is good news for my vegie patch)

There's not much I can add, but perhaps I should reiterate that the references in Idso's paper are at the bottom of the file, there are 450 of them, most are from academic journals, or the IPCC, or textbooks, and they seem OK to me. He may be a loony or in the pay of an evil monster, but it doesn't seem so from the long paper, which is academic in form and content. He is a PhD level scientist, so I guess he knows about how to do all this.

I took particular notice of the ones about Australia, and again, they looked kosher to me. If people think there is something shoddy about an aspect of the argument or evidence, then for goodness sake find the shoddiness and tell us what and why. That way we can argue about something important.

I find argumentum ad hominem immensely boring. To me it suggests the person doing it has no real interest in the substance of the argument.

Let me for the record state that I have no interest in the Norton et al. 1999 paper, or what it states. What it states doesn't matter, it may be the truth,whatever- that's irrelevant.

What is relevant is that Idso runs a 'database' of results, in this database are references to papers that he has extracted the information from, but no links to the actual paper information that enables tracking. I have found WITH A RANDOM SAMPLE OF ONE, that the information he has extracted is not always correct.

There may be references in the paper that Don Aitken refers to, but they don't contain all the references that Idso has used for his 'database'.

Don also says:
"I took particular notice of the ones about Australia, and again, they looked kosher to me. If people think there is something shoddy about an aspect of the argument or evidence, then for goodness sake find the shoddiness and tell us what and why. That way we can argue about something important."

Look kosher to you? What do you mean? That they exist, or that they look like Idso collated the information from them properly and interpreted it correctly ? Yes, I think there is something shoddy going on from my one random sample, it may have been an honest and isolated mistake, but what are the odds that the first random hit produced such a result?

But I got to tell you, I will not go through everything that Idso has done to find the shoddy bits, that's what peer review is for FFS. You're better than this Don.

As for cohenites "Anyway there is ample evidence that overall, despite issues with N2 in particular, that extra CO2 is a boon to plants and crops" may be true, but certainly not for ALL plants and crops. Where is the discussion on that?

Don also states:"He [Idso] is a PhD level scientist, so I guess he knows about how to do all this."

So are all the climate scientists you choose to ignore and disagree with Don.

And so am I.

Bugsy, yours is typical behaviour in this debate I'm afraid. You pick on a reference that is not in the paper under discussion, say that it has been incorrectly reported, and therefore, because of one "mistake", the whole lot is negated.

At the same time you're prepared to overlook all sorts of misstatements of fact from the catastrophist side, such as the claim that cyclones and hurricanes are expected to increase in frequency and severity.

Why don't you deal with the paper that Don actually cites and tell us where it is wrong? And by that I mean substantially wrong. Not that he may have got a decimal point wrong somewhere or another.

The case that more CO2 is good for plants, at least up to 1000 ppm is pretty solid. Afterall, that is why hothouses introduce CO2 to plants - because they like it.

Are you disagreeing with this proposition? If so, say so, and cite your proof (peer reviewed of course, seeing you insist that is the only proof that counts).