Mr. Fletcher is at least being consistent as well as disingenuous. He states in his most recent piece: This is not “carbon pollution,” as some North American politicians now refer to carbon dioxide, the invisible gas we exhale with every breath that helps trees grow.
One definition of pollution is simply having too much of a substance in any one place at any one time. From a study done at Stanford University:
“Writing in the journal Science, researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change — namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil.”
So, while CO2 does help tree growth, too much of the gas retards growth – just as, while water is necessary for plant growth, too much water will drown trees. As well, chlorine is necessary to life, but too much is deadly (as was demonstrated in the First World War). Yet we consume chlorine on a daily basis, in the form of salt, not to mention our drinking water.
It’s called all things in moderation, Mr. Fletcher, and you’d do well to mention that when you imply that (among other things) CO2 is harmless. Or you too may run the risk of being accused of what Judith Curry in your article calls the UN definition of climate change: “a perversion of the definition … designed to mislead people into thinking that all climate change is caused by humans.”
I am sure you wouldn’t want to mislead your loyal readers, would you?
Richard Weatherill
Saanich
