Say what now?
I realize this could be just a metaphor. A journalist groping for a more interesting way of saying something – but wouldn’t you assume that plants “losing their appetite” are somehow absorbing less carbon dioxide?
Nope. After admitting that carbon dioxide and warmer weather was awesome for trees for a while, globular warmening means they’re absorbing less CO2 because “wildfires, drought, storms, floods, the spread of new pests and diseases and plant heat stress.”
In other words, trees absorb less when they’ve been destroyed. Someone once suggested we start a science magazine called Duh.
It’s the Guardian, obviously. Someone posted the headline on X without including a link and I went looking for it. Was not at all surprised to find it in that cesspit.
I always go looking for the article now. Too many people post sexy, sexy headlines and the article is ten years old, misquoted or nowhere to be found.
Posted: February 26th, 2025 under weather.
Comments: 4
Comments
Comment from Uncle Al
Time: February 26, 2025, 8:00 pm
Back during peak ClimateGate days (remember that?) because of its unmatched attention to detail and accuracy and truth and spelling, we called it The Grauniad.
Would it be consistent with UK usage to call The Grauniad “rubbish” or should I go with the US’s “garbage”?
Comment from durnedyankee
Time: February 27, 2025, 12:01 am
Yes, plants have just decided not to grow any more.
Because they’ve uh, stored up all the CO2 they need in their CO2 tanks, and now they can’t store any more.
Yeah, that’s what it is, yeah.
Furthermore – if it reached peak sequestration in 2008, then what have these sequestration companies been doing with it since 2008?
and guess how much the US government has been paying out to states for sequestration? $50 million.
Comment from S. Weasel
Time: February 27, 2025, 12:56 pm
That’s an old one, Uncle Al. Brits have called in the Grauniad since forever.
Comment from Bob Mulroy
Time: February 27, 2025, 5:42 pm
If anything, plants will use more CO2 if the temperature goes up.
I gave up on “science journalism” in 1987.
Write a comment
Beware: more than one link in a comment is apt to earn you a trip to the spam filter, where you will remain -- cold, frightened and alone -- until I remember to clean the trap. But, hey, without Akismet, we'd be up to our asses in...well, ass porn, mostly.<< carry me back to ol' virginny