For the last 30-40 years, we’ve been routinely told that rising CO2 levels are leading to:
1) Global warming (now amended to ‘climate change’), and
2) Terrible future outcomes for planet earth.
Firstly, as we covered in the last post, people are not responsible for climate change. Climate change - even massive, immediate climate change - has been happening for millennia, long before humanity began the industrial revolution and started burning fossil fuels.
Climate change has much more to do with what’s going on in our solar system, and the earth’s reaction to these events, than human activity, however crass or destructive.
(To put this another way: God is in charge of the weather. That’s the bottom line, and it’s also something that nearly no scientist is willing or able to concede, hence all the crazy ‘climate change’ theories.)
But in this post, I wanted to pull out some of the facts about CO2 to start to explore a little bit what might actually happen, if CO2 levels do continue to rise - regardless of anything humanity might be doing to retard or promote this effect.
As usual, I know I sound like a ‘flat earther’ at this stage in the post. I mean, we all KNOW that rising CO2 emissions are a terribly bad thing for planet earth, don’t we?! How often have we been told that by ‘the experts’, how often have we seen news stories making direct links between taking our SUV for a spin and the rainforest dying….
So I have to say that I was also pretty surprised at what started to turn up very quickly, when you scratch the surface of the ‘scientific’ claim that increased CO2 = huge destruction of planet earth.
Because in fact, the opposite appears to be true.
Before we continue, take a look at these two, very short, videos from no less an authority than NASA, which clearly shows how very large (and historically frozen…) areas of the world are starting to get a whole bunch greener. The first video shows the world, generally, and the second video concentrates more on Alaska and North America.
These videos were put out to illustrate a new study that was published on April 25, 2016 by a team of 32 scientists from 8 different countries in the Nature Climate Change Journal. In that study, the scientists found that:
“From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Now, I don’t know about you but this actually sounds like pretty good news, climate change-wise.
Frozen tundras don’t grow a thing, people can’t live there, and 10% of the world is currently covered by perma-frost, taking these land masses off the table as viable areas of the planet where more food could be grown and more people could live.
Of course, all these benefits - which let’s remember have already been witnessed and recorded in real time on planet earth, not just guessed at and predicted by computer models in the labs of climate change professors - fly in the face of all the doom-mongering about the terrible ‘problems’ apparently associated with rising CO2.
To put this in NASA speak: Houston, we have a problem.
So as this study came out, the climate change lobby scrambled to try to keep the debate going. First of all, they listed a whole bunch of apparently ‘bad’ side effects of climate change, including:
We can’t do anything much about the ‘downside’ of climate change, except to stop telling lies about what’s really causing it, and to get real about what it really might mean for the planet and also to stop exaggerating the awful impact that we believe it may cause (more on this in a moment).
But in the meantime, the climate change lobby trotted out a number of talking heads to try to damper down any thought that climate change could actually be good for the planet, at least in some major ways:
The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”
We’ll met Dr Ciais again later on and we’ll also discover his other employer (which is very pertinent information that is strangely missing from this citation on the Nasa website).
One of the biggest ‘worries’ the climate change lobby likes to promote is that the ocean can’t cope absorbing all the extra CO2 that’s out there, and that this will kill off a bunch of our marine life in a process named ‘ocean acidification’.
Here’s an excellent piece of recent ‘ocean acidification’ scaremongering from the Guardian, published in October 2017:
If the outlook for marine life was already looking bleak – torrents of plastic that can suffocate and starve fish, overfishing, diverse forms of human pollution that create dead zones, the effects of global warming which is bleaching coral reefs and threatening coldwater species – another threat is quietly adding to the toxic soup.
But while these ‘alarming’ climate change studies are getting so much attention in the press, the scientists who are say the opposite are getting very short shrift. This from The Spectator:
“Howard Browman, a marine scientist for 35 years, has published a review in the ICES Journal of Marine Science of all the papers published on the subject. His verdict could hardly be more damning. The methodology used by the studies was often flawed; contrary studies suggesting that ocean acidification wasn’t a threat had sometimes had difficulty finding a publisher. There was, he said, an ‘inherent bias’ in scientific journals which predisposed them to publish ‘doom and gloom stories’.”
Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Dr Patrick Moore recently published a paper on ‘ocean acidificiation’ where he clearly stated:
“The term “ocean acidification” is, in itself, rather misleading. The scale of pH runs from 0 to 14 where 7 is neutral, below 7 is acidic and above 7 is basic, or alkaline. The pH of the world’s oceans varies from 7.5 to 8.3, well into the alkaline scale.
According to Moore, there is no chance that increased CO2 in the oceans will kill off anything, and it may well even have a positive effect on marine life:
“An analysis of research on the effect of lower pH shows a net beneficial impact on the calcification, metabolism, growth, fertility and survival of calcifying marine species when pH is lowered up to 0.3 units, which is beyond what is considered a plausible reduction during this century.”
Guess what? NASA agrees with him!
NASA satellites are finding that over the last few years, instead of the ocean and marine life ‘dying off’, previously barren stretches of the ocean are bursting back into life, again thanks to the increase in the planet’s temperature.
This comes from the NASA website:
"Satellites have measured the Arctic getting greener, as shrubs expand their range and thrive in warmer temperatures… As ocean waters warm, satellites have detected a shift in phytoplankton populations across the planet's five great ocean basins — the expansion of "biological deserts" where little life thrives….
Again, call me crazy, but doesn’t this sound suspiciously like good news for the planet? I mean, more plankton means more food for fish, which means more fish, which means fuller, thriving oceans all around.
If you want to know why you probably haven’t heard about this stunning evidence for the good side of global warming / climate change, then you’re in good company. Matt Ridley writing in the Spectator last year explained that:
"Four years ago, I came across an online video of a lecture given by Ranga Myneni of Boston University in which he presented an ingenious analysis of data from satellites. This proved that much of the vegetated area of the planet was getting greener, and only a little bit was getting browner.
Ridley was ‘startled’ by these findings. Although he knew that commercial greenhouse owners had started routinely doubling the carbon dioxide levels to get their tomatoes to grow faster, this was the first time that CO2 impact on the earth’s vegetation overall had been measured.
Ridley laments that even though the paper’s lead author, Zaichun Zhu of Beijing University, said that this increase of greenery was ‘like adding a green continent twice the size of mainland USA’ to the planet - no-one was interested in reporting it:
“[A]s I found out, there is not much market for this good news. I was subjected online to withering scorn by the usual climate spin doctors, but even they had to admit I was ‘factually accurate’.
Another interesting point I got from reading Ridley’s piece is that while the climate change lobby are very keen on quoting Nobel laureate Svante Arrhenius when it comes to predicting doom and gloom scenarios for the planet as a result of rising CO2, they are strangely coy about reproducing his statements of what would occur if CO2 levels should indeed rise, as he thought.
‘By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates.’ He predicted that the earth: ‘will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind’.
How strange that the climate change lobby never mention this aspect of his statements, when citing his research into rising CO2 levels. And in case you think that all the doom-and-gloom was only written when they didn’t know any better, i.e. before the study showing the benefits of CO2 greening was published, the following comes from a recent article on the National Geographic website:
The planet is already suffering from some impacts of global warming.
Again, if this was the only information you were going on you’d be certain that all this frozen wasteland turning into green pastures is awful; that the ‘impact’ of global warming on the world is only bad, that more rain can only be a bad thing and that the only ‘species’ that are thriving in warmer temperatures are tree-destroying insects.
But if that’s not enough, National Geographic then launches into a whole bunch of ominous ‘predictions’ again, including the spread of disease, the extinction of species (which is strange, given that most creatures find it harder to survive in Arctic conditions than lush, warmer ones) and less fresh water available, despite noting that ‘precipitation (rain and snowfall) has increased across the globe, on average’, immediately above their scary predictions.
Here’s my favorite doom-and-gloom warning from National Geographic:
Just recently, National Geographic was slammed for shopping around a viral video of a ‘starving polar bear’ which they claimed was a result of man-made climate change, but they were forced to back down - at least a little - when challenged on the claims being made in the video.
“Nunavut polar bear monitor Leo Ikakhik told CBC that he was not surprised by the sight of the starving bear in the video. "Everybody probably was shocked to see a really skinny bear, but this is not my first time seeing something like this,” he told Carol Off, host of CBC’s radio show "As It Happens."
Ikakhik, who has been monitoring polar bear activity since 2010, said that the polar bear in the video may have been sick or recovering from an injury that made it unable to hunt. "I wouldn't really blame the climate change. It's just part of the animal, what they go through."
But any hint that climate change is not man-made, and is not destroying the planet, or that rising CO2 levels could be a good thing - all based on empirically proven studies - is uniformly derided by the media and ‘official’ science. On another ‘proper’ website for scientists, phys.org we’re told that:
“The beneficial aspect of CO2 fertilization in promoting plant growth has been used by contrarians, notably Lord Ridley (hereditary peer in the UK House of Lords) and Mr. Rupert Murdoch (owner of several news outlets), to argue against cuts in carbon emissions to mitigate climate change, similar to those agreed at the 21st Conference of Parties (COP) meeting in Paris last year under the UN Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
How shocking, that anyone should argue for a rethink of policy based on actual facts and proven observations! But Phillippe Ciais pops up again to tell us that:
"The fallacy of the contrarian argument is two-fold. First, the many negative aspects of climate change, namely global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice, more severe tropical storms, etc. are not acknowledged. Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time," says co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, Associate Director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suvYvette, France and Contributing Lead Author of the Carbon Chapter for the recent IPCC Assessment Report.
This is a good time to remind us all that the US alone spent $64 billion on ‘climate change’ research between 2010 and 2013, and a lot of that money went straight into the IPCC coffers that Ciais works for.
According to a report last year by Climate Change Business Journal, the climate change industry is now worth a whopping $1.5 trillion a year. So many scientists, so many people, now owe their jobs to ‘man made climate change’ that should it disappear, we could be facing the next Great Depression…
Which is probably the single biggest reason why the enormous amount of evidence that shows that global warming and melting glaciers are probably a GOOD thing aren’t getting a fair hearing.
Really, what are the negative aspects to more of the world developing a livable climate where plants and food can grow (aside from the skinnier polar bears?)
The last thing to tell you for now is that back in 1992 - more than 25 years’ ago - the fossil fuel industry put out a video called ‘The Greening of Planet Earth’ which put forward the suggestion that more carbon dioxide would lead to the ‘greening’ of planet earth.
Writing all the way back in 2001, Patrick Michaels explained that:
“Greening” was put out by energy-industry activists (you can get your own copy by contacting http://www.greeningearthsociety.org), who discovered that several big-name scientists were willing to appear and argue that carbon dioxide will enhance global plant growth by directly stimulating plants and by warming the coldest air of winter.
These scientists found that Eurasia had as much as 18 extra crop-growing days year, thanks to ‘global warming’, while the increase in North America averaged 12 extra days a year. Michaels concludes:
“So is this what global warming has wrought? It appears to have created a more comfortable planet with more food. The video was right. The greens were wrong. The world is greener.”
Michaels himself wrote these words more than 16 years ago, yet the climate change lobby has consistently failed to include the observable facts on the ground about the benefits of climate change and rising CO2 levels - like a 14% greener planet, like more potentially cultivatable and habitable land, like 18 extra days to grow more food in a year - to harp on ‘predictions’ of computer-modelled problems that have almost entirely failed to materialize.
Sure, I’ll be upset if the polar bears get a little skinnier. But if it means that millions more people have affordable food and a location they can cultivate and thrive in, I think I’ll be able to live with it.