I think this statement is misleading. Climate change is multi-factorial and subject to a number of inputs and outputs. I would agree that focusing on one aspect of climate change is inappropriate based on our current knowledge. The affect of CO2 on atmospheric warming is proven by science and efforts to control it along with methane emissions is necessary.
Alan,
I definitely agree that climate change is multi-factorial and also enormously complex with so many positive and negative feedbacks which, fortunately, tend to create a balance.
The point I was making in my previous post is that the news media tends to focus only on the negative aspects of CO2 and doesn't even try to educate the listener about basic and fundamental qualities related to whatever aspect of climate change is being mentioned.
A few examples spring to mind but I'll refer to just one, otherwise the post would be very long.
(1) CO2 is a pollutant. Rarely is it mentioned that CO2 is essential for all life and that most plants thrive in elevated levels of CO2, especially when they are water-stressed.
There are real problems resulting from deforestation for agricultural purposes, which must affect the climate to some degree, but fortunately the CO2 we emit from the burning of fossil fuels at least helps the remaining forests to flourish, as well as most of the food crops we grow.
Of course, we don't notice such effects because CO2 levels have been rising so gradually over the past 150 years, at an average rate of less than 1 part per million per year. One wouldn't expect a farmer to notice, after, say, 10 or 20 years of farming a particular crop, that the same crop was growing more vigorously due to the very small increases in CO2 during that 10 or 20 year period. Even if the period were much longer, say 50 or 60 years, it would be assumed that any increase in the growth of a particular crop would be due to improved farming techniques and better application of fertilizers, water, pesticides and weed control.
However, imagine a scenario in which we could funnel CO2 into outer space at a very high rate, so that CO2 levels were reduced from the current 406 ppm to pre-industrial levels of 285 ppm within a year or so.
Then the farmers would notice a significant reduction in crop yields, despite applying the same amount of water and fertilizers.
Of course, if the farmers were forewarned that CO2 levels would be drastically reduced during the next growing season, they might be able compensate for the effects of reduced CO2 levels by applying more water and fertilizers to their crops. That would raise the cost of food, which might not be a problem in wealthy, developed countries, but could be a serious problem for many people in poor, undeveloped countries, and the poor farmers in those countries who already struggle to grow sufficient food with insufficient fertilizers and water supplies.
