Comments on: Your view of CO2

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 21:28:41 +0000

David du Toit, poll results at this comment date/time

NO: 128
YES: 9

Ha ha ha!

And your ideology is?

By: Maurice@TheMount

Maurice@TheMount — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 07:06:48 +0000

One day we will bring all the Carbon Clowns to reality.
Atmospheric CO2 (Plant Food) is a necessity for all life on earth, and currently earths
atmosphere is CO2 (Plant Food) impoverished, all life on earth would benefit with more of it.
CO2 is PLANT FOOD….FACT FACT FACT.

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:09:58 +0000

Good point, FijiDave. Now that you draw my attention to it, I think you could be right. Current level is 388 and the number 450 is a popular one.

By: FijiDave

FijiDave — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:26:34 +0000

Barry Brill: “… current level of 285ppm to rise above 350ppm ”

Shouldn’t that be 385 (or 388) and 450 ppm respectively?

Just asking.

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:31:30 +0000

Excellent news, Barry, thank you! I am pleased to be corrected on these figures, since they were causing some anxiety — distant, but anxiety nonetheless.

By: Barry Brill

Barry Brill — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:09:27 +0000

Richard – a small challenge on one point. You say that CO2 atmospheric concentration will reach 800ppm by 2255 “at the current rate of increase”.

But the current rate won’t continue. It’s quite closely correlated with global population – which demographers tell us will reach a maximum of nearly 9 billion by about 2050, then reduce to 7.5 billion by 2100. So, on this basis alone, the rate of increase will reduce in 40 years and keep going down thereafter.

Then the second greatest contributor to the rate increase is “carbon intensity”. China says they will reduce theirs by at least 45% within 10 years, and India is expecting to do almost as well. These are the 2 largest future emitters.

The G20 and others have stated that they don’t want the current level of 285ppm to rise above 350ppm during the next century. On any reasonable set of forecasts, the world will meet that target very comfortably.

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:31:51 +0000

Hi G/S, Yes, I agree it's a good candidate. "Melt" is one of the options in our poll, go ahead and vote for it if you wish. Richard.

By: G/S. Williams

G/S. Williams — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:46:32 +0000

Hi, Richard,

Regarding your polls, referring to the iceberg one, what about naming a group of icebergs as “a melt of icebergs”; after all, once they have broken off whatever they will have started to melt.

Keep up the good work.
GSW

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:52:35 +0000

Hi David,

You’re quick to make assumptions, but you are wrong. We have no ideology but truth.

I can assure there’s no trickery involved, as we don’t host the poll, it’s done offsite by a third party. We have no control over it.

There is a “no” vote registered now. It is the first one. Perhaps that is your vote. Have another look. When you reload the page the updated voting results will be visible.

If you’re still unhappy, please leave another comment.

Thank you for visiting. Perhaps you can record your opinions on one of the articles.

Cheers,
Richard Treadgold.

By: David du Toit

David du Toit — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:03:57 +0000

Ha ha ha!

Your poll only registers NO votes – maybe it even registers YES votes as NO votes!

What a flippen disgrace – fabricating/manipulating evidence to serve your ideology.