http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=201

is an article about the death of Dr. Norman Borlaug, the father of the
green revolution. One interesting part of the article was the effect
of increased CO2 on plant growth. When I read Randy's comments on the
reduction of nutrients in there seemed to be a disconnect with the
observations of increased size. There may be a rational reason for the
larger plants but less nutrients per unit mass. But there may be more
nutrients over all because there is more mass.

Whenever this sort of study comes out, I wonder (as Bob does) about
the advocacy group behind it. The Arctic ice sheet is classic. It has
gone back to its average size in the past year. But the larger problem
is we really only have 30 years of good data on which to base
anything, so what is actually average? We were transiting the NW
passage in the early 1900s, and that was before nuclear powered
icebreakers and GW.

The link I posted is a GW skeptic who uses reputable science and
acknowledges that there is increased CO2. It is where we go from there
that is the issue with CO2.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Access BEE-L directly at:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=BEE-L