Of course adding CO2 to the air can be considered environmentally friendly. The short term CO2 cycle on Earth is that plants suck up the CO2 from the atmosphere and store it. Then, when these plants die (or transferred to other animals which eventually die), the resulting decay will release the carbon back into the atmosphere. Since CO2 is needed for plants to grow, it would be somewhat analogous to saying that more food on the planet can be considered human friendly. No shit.
Of course that report may be considering something different but since it is so vague, I must assume the most basic reason.
Also, it is easy to try to disprove "mainstream" ideas because usually mainstream ideas are not entirely correct but just close enough for everyone to understand the concept. For example, from the Science is Broken site....
Quote:
|
For example, while no one denies that humans add carbon dioxide to the air at a rate of 3%, while other sources, such as decay, add at a rate of 97%, the human addition supposedly accumulated to 30% of the total. Why didn't the other sources accumulate also, which would keep the human contribution at 3%?
|
I am not sure where these statistics are from but this probably has to do with the short term and long term carbon cycles. Decay (assuming the stat is correct) accounts for 97% of the added CO2 but since decay comes from plants that have already taken CO2 out of the air to grow, the overall increase in CO2 is zero.
Humans, on the other hand, take carbon out of the ground, which would be considered the long term carbon cycle because the process from air carbon to coal carbon back to air carbon takes millions of years.
Quote:
Implicitly, the natural sources maintain a fixed state, while the human influence does something different. It's like nature created a full bucket, and humans over-fill it.
There is no such fixed state in nature. Nature cannot tell the difference between the carbon dioxide which humans add and the carbon dioxide which decay adds. Nature is not locked into a fixed quantity which will not tolerate additions to it.
|
http://nov55.com/logic.html
No legitimate scientist would EVER say that we are in a fixed state. The Earth is constantly changing and many different fluctuations occur ranging from the temperature rise and fall between day and night to the million year long continent cycle. But, Earth is constantly in an equilibrium. That is a fact because equilibrium is always necessary.
But the problem is that the Earth is extremely nihilistic. It won't care if 95% of the species get wiped out because they will inevitably be replaced by new ones. That means, if Earth's conditions are changed enough, then the new equilibrium could produce an environment that is greatly hurtful to human existence.
That being said, the human increase in carbon from the ground to the air could cause a change in the equilibrium, which could be hurtful to humans.
Note: I am not using that as an argument for human caused global warming but just showing how many logic holes are present in that web site. Many of them just "disprove" statements that are not necessarily held by the scientific community. Essentially, a strawman.