My apologies dickie if my feeble attempts at humour offended.

That said, I don't know there's much point in returning to the issue at hand. Richard has made it clear his article didn't "focus on the climate science" He isn't interested in the science, except to denigrate those who disagree with him. In fact, for him the whole issue is simply a stick to beat ideological foes with (eg moral relativists such as myself). Thus the debate has degenerated into mud-slinging (myself not excepted). Posters have been arguing at cross purposes. I think global warming is important, Richard and his ilk simply use the issue to stir the pot.

This thread has seen plenty of heat, but not much light. Apposite for an article dealing with global warming.

Its almost redundant to add to this rout of wilful ignorance and obscenity, but as Perseus insists on boasting of his pitifully weak hand...

Increases in veg. growth with higher CO2?

Aus. Greenhouse Office:
"Bearing in mind the constraints on the scientific knowledge base noted above and the lack of elevated CO2 experimentation that has been done under Australian environmental conditions, the effects of changing climate and atmospheric CO2 concentration on Australian plantbased industries can be summarised as follows.

Cropping (wheat) systems: Given the dearth of experimentally based information for Australian conditions, model-based analyses are the only way to estimate impacts of climate change on the Australian wheat industry. A sophisticated model-based assessment that included the effects of both elevated CO2 and changes in climate means and extremes has proposed (i) small increases in mean production, but a significant probability of lowered production; (ii) marked regional differences in production; and (iii) enhanced production if growers respond with appropriate adaptation strategies. Nonetheless, given that the probabilities of positive or negative overall effects are roughly equal, we might well conclude on the basis of risk assessment that there is a serious cause for concern about the future of the current Australian wheat industry under global climate change.

Grazing systems: A detailed model-based study for Queensland of the impacts of doubling CO2, increasing temperature, and varying rainfall suggests that ‘safe’ animal carrying capacity may increase, but major uncertainties remain on the effects of elevated CO2 and climate change on nutritional quality of feed, plantplant competition, both in terms of the composition of herbaceous species and of the woody:grass ratio.

Forestry systems: Compared with cropping and grazing systems, less is known about the effects of elevated CO2 on Australian forests. The limited observational evidence available internationally is inconclusive but suggests that elevated CO2 effects decrease as trees age, so the effects of elevated CO2 on old growth or mature forests will be less than on short-rotation plantation forests, where it is likely that fast-growing saplings and young trees are more likely to respond to elevated CO2 with enhanced net primary production.
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/agriculture/publications/carbon.html

(CO2 fertilisation continued..)

or

"Unfortunately, the results of experiments with raising crops under artificial circumstances do not always correspond with data from actual farms. For example, models indicate that the rise in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide from 280 parts per million in pre-industrial times to nearly 360 ppm today should already have increased actual farm yields by 1-5%. However, no statistically significant increases related to "CO2-fertilisation" have yet been detected."
http://www.cs.ntu.edu.au/homepages/jmitroy/sid101/uncc/fs122.html

2nd link (further on) supports other findings showing lower nutrient content in CO2-fertilised plants, meaning stock and humans have to eat more to get same food value.

These do not directly contradict Perseus' claims about plant growth in the unknown ditch he refers to (but provides no published data on, lol), but they do show that his exagerated claims on CO2 fertilisation have nothing to do with real science.

Before getting obscene with me again Perseus, please address the many questions other posters have raised with your previous fabrications in this thread (never mind other threads).

Liam, the 1999 CSIRO workshop on the impact of climate change on temperate forests was advised that increased CO2 levels tended to improve water use efficiency (more growth from same water or same growth from less water) and improved growth overall. I delivered the industry perspective to that gathering but don't recall meeting any Liams.

Your quote dealing with the lower fertilisation effect in old growth forest is a classic example of a little knowledge that merely confuses the ignorant. Old growth trees do not experience a growtrh increase from higher CO2 because they are actually in the process of dying. And if you had a rudimentary grasp of the Australian forest estate you would know that only a very small portion of it is old growth. The rest is regrowth in various life cycle stages and fully capable of exploiting an increase in CO2.

Furthermore, vast tracts of rangelands all over the world are subject to the thickenning process whereby what was once sparse tree cover has undergone substantial increases in stem density and size. And one of the likely contributing factors to this phenomenon is increased CO2.

Stern was in serious error to assume that this carbon fertilisation effect would be minimal.

And as for your apparent awe for someone who is essentially a journalist, one can only say, pathetic.

Liam what was the date of that post? I would think carbon fertilisation is now beside the point because of current drying trends. There are similar arguments of capturing benefits of salinity but in the case of sodium a lot of hard work is required to instigate agriculture which also meets consumer resistance.
Drought causes biodiversity decline which in turn impacts on grazing and forestry. Climate change is lowering anticyclonic tracks which Australia depends on. For the continent to heat enough to draw in seasonal monsoonal rains to the entire continent (which will eventually occur in the future) will create an even harsher climate regime than the drought climate we have now. For the next several decades Australia is drying. This has occurred in prehistory but unlike any time before refuge corridors are closed for species dispersal. Through land clearance and urbanisation we have blocked off access for species to access refuge. Most creeks on the eastern and south-western sea boards are so dammed up that they remain dry even in normal wet periods and so offer less refuge. Water tables are lowering from over use and are accelerating because of the drought. The effect of this will be the loss of large tree species in many areas. There will be biodiversity loss and major shifts in ecosystems but the result will be poorer than in recent prehistory because species are mostly isolated and contained.
What we are facing is coastal communities like Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne facing a climate liken to Alice Springs and for the Alice , the Sahara.

Dear Mr Castles,
See “Mother-earthism infects climate change debate”
By Bob Carter - posted Thursday, 6 October 2005
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3813

Bob says “Many Australians are worried, rightly, by the possibility that avian flu might infect the nation. They should be just as concerned about the disease of “mother earthism” ".
and so on

Among the comments we find
Posted by Perseus, Thursday, 6 October 2005 10:52:43 PM
(check original for arguable context):
"All good points, Bob. In the late 90's I was invited to provide a private forest owners perspective to a CSIRO workshop on the impact of climate change on temperate forests. The group was advised that the impact of a 1 degree increase in temperature and a 10% reduction in average rainfall could be easily ascertained by inspecting a similar forest about 50km to the northwest of just about anywhere in eastern Australia."
(snip)
"When asked what management actions we could take in response to change, we advised that we would simply adjust the stocking rate of trees in the same way that nature does now. That is, instead of thinning a stand of regrowth back to 800 stems per hectare we would reduce this by 10% to 720 stems to ensure that each retained tree had the same water budget as before."
(snip)

Scientific American Editor John Rennie's remark about "The Skeptical Environmentalist" comes to mind: " … I am … reminded of H. L. Mencken's remark, "For every problem, there is a neat, simple solution, and it is always wrong." "

HIV/AIDS in South Africa shows the possible consequences when opinion leaders persist in championing scepticism in favour of timely action. From 1990 to 1998, the HIV/AIDS prevalence rate in South Africa grew from 0.7% to about 22%. Meanwhile, Thabo Mbeki based South African HIV/AIDS policy on the work of Professor Peter Duesburg, rather than the broad consensus opinion.
http://www.duesberg.com/subject/africa2 shows the heroic sceptic personified.

We need both to question and to act. The HIV/AIDS epidemic grew exponentially while Mbeki promoted "debate”. Is this what you want to risk with the global environment?