Here's a paper that says unless we have more CO2 we're not going to be able to grow enough food to feed the world in the future:
http://www.liebertpub.com/MCon...
All plants have a temperature range they're happy in. Irelands used to grow wheat, but when it cold colder and wetter they switch to potatoes. The kind of temperature increases being talked about (that didn't happen) aren't going to affect anything.
Water matters more. And it's known when you cut down all the trees, rain sorta stops - think of trees as hydraulic pumps that squite water into the air from the ground and you'd not be too wrong.
We've killed half the trees in the last 100 years.
Is there a chance AGW is a smoke screen for that?
AGW has also attenuated discussion of pollution, any chance AGW is a smokescreen for that?
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
Co2 keeps going up, but temperatures haven't risen as projected. Does that mean mother nature is wrong or the IPCC model is? Pick one.
http://www.economist.com/news/...