Monckton and Shimkus get silly together

By Ken Perrott 12/05/2010

I hope out Parliamentary Committee hearings in New Zealand don’t get this silly.

Here’s an argument against climate change made last year to a hearing in the US House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment by Republican John Shimkus

via YouTube – Rep. John Shimkus: God decides when the “earth will end”.

This was followed by a little exchange with “expert witness” Lord Monckton. These global warming deniers made a novel argument that because plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, limiting our man-made carbon dioxide emissions would actually kill the world’s plants:

Thanks to Progress Illinois Shimkus: Capping C02 Emissions Will “Take Away Plant Food”


Similar articles

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


0 Responses to “Monckton and Shimkus get silly together”

  • Something I’ve noticed recently is that CO2 is often written without subscripting the 2. Is that because subscripts are not possible on blogs?
    I noticed that the Climate Change Coalition have a pdf document to “inform the public” about climate change which refers to carbon dioxide as CO2 all the way through which makes them look like they don’t know more than first year chemistry. Completely amateurish in a document where subscripting should be easy. However I’ve notice that CO2 is turning up more and more often on both sides of the debate.

  • also, if I hear the “but plants need carbon dioxide” one more time I swear I will go insane. It’s the one argument that immediately demonstrates to me that someone just does not understand science.

  • Most blog posts should be able to handle the subscripts. However, maybe those tags aren’t available to commenters. Even if they are most people would not be aware of them or have the time to use them.

    I agree, documents, articles and posts should handle them properly. Mind you I have seen a few cases where people use superscripts.

  • +1 from me.

    I’ve used subscripts and superscripts in my articles. Use the sup and sub tags. There’s no excuse to not use them in PDFs, really. It would look rather amateur…

    As Ken was saying, some things don’t work in the comments though. Science is about testing right? 😉 So allow me…


    e = mc2

  • Also, does it really matter? Everyone’s aware what CO2 denotes, and hopefully that’s the main thing 🙂

  • Aimee, like Ken I’m not fussed for/against if comments can or can’t, but in more formal documents it’s not so great.

  • I suspect in a world where twitter, texting etc is becoming a common way of communicating that subscripts become difficult. Having just taught a class of pre-nursing students about chemical formula I wonder when such lessons may become redundant. (personally I hope never).
    However, at present, anyone who uses CO2 or H20 etc in documents where subscripting is relatively easy (e.g. Word) is not providing an impression of scientific professionalism or knowledge (in my opinion anyway).
    I guess other things that may also go the same way are the use of italics for the scientific naming of plants and maybe even capital letters for people and place names.