Tuesday, June 21, 2016

CO2 is beneficial, there is no climate crisis

So says Greenpeace co-founder, Patrick Moore in his latest publication.  From the conclusions:
... Despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary, much of Western society has been convinced that a global warming and a climate change crisis is upon us. The idea of catastrophic climate change is a powerful one, as it encompasses everything and everywhere on Earth. There is nowhere to hide from “carbon pollution.” There is also the combination of fear and guilt: we are fearful that driving our cars will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing so. A powerful convergence of interests among key elites supports and drives the climate catastrophe narrative. ...
... Lost in all these machinations is the indisputable fact that the most important thing about CO2 is that it is essential for all life on Earth and that before humans began to burn fossil fuels, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was heading in a very dangerous direction for a very long time. Surely, the most “dangerous” change in climate in the short term would be to one that would not support sufficient food production to feed our own population. ... The best outcome would be that CO2 does cause some measure of warming, but somewhat lower than that suggested by extreme predictions.  We should ask those who predict catastrophic climate change, including the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, some pressing questions regarding the outcome if humans had not intervened in the carbon cycle. 
• What evidence is there that we are not already past the maximum global temperature during this Holocene interglacial period? 
• How can we be certain that in the absence of human emissions the next cooling period would not be more severe than the recent Little Ice Age? 
• Given that the optimum CO2 level for plant growth is above 1,000 ppm and that CO2 has been above that level for most of the history of life, what sense does it make to call for a reduction in the level of CO2 in the absence of evidence of catastrophic climate change?
• Is there any plausible scenario, in the absence of human emissions, that would end the gradual depletion of CO2 in the atmosphere until it reaches the starvation level for plants, hence for life on earth? 
• What evidence or argument is there that the global climate would not revert to another glacial period in keeping with the Milankovitch cycles as it has done repeatedly during at least the past 800,000 years?
These and many other questions about CO2, climate and plant growth require our serious consideration if we are to avoid making some very costly mistakes.  


Alain said...

What far too many fail to understand is that this is not, has never been, about global warming/climate change. It is used as a tool by the globalists pushing for an end to all national sovereignty and for a global government. Of course there is no shortage of useful idiots who fall for the lies and propaganda, but those promoting it know what they are doing. Actually the globalists have been trying for many years and have used all kinds of trumped up crisis, but until the latest one (global warming/climate change) they never succeeded in getting the West and governments of same countries to fall for it.

I am not disagreeing about CO2 not being a problem here, only that people need to do their research to understand what is behind this latest scam. Agenda 21 of the UN is a necessary read for a start.

Anonymous said...

old white guy says...........CO2 is 0.04% of atmospheric gases, it is warming nothing..........the instrumental record (for weather) covers about 25% of the globe and has done so for, at most, 120 years. the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.......that makes the sample size 0.000002643172%. give me a call when the science improves...... computer models are speculation not science.

Anonymous said...

I do recommend reading Patrick Moore's paper. Learned a lot, and makes a very convincing case for the benefits of human generated CO2.

Of course, AGW zealots won't bother. Too busy planning 21st century inquisitions against heretics to the faith.


You just cannot make up unowhat like this.

Al in Cranbrook

JR said...

I have little doubt that globalists, socialists, radical environmentalists and political opportunists have agendas that do not bode well for human freedom, liberty and economic well-being. And they would vigorously pursue those agendas in the absence of any theory of man-made global warming. However, the theoretical threat of global warming gives them an enormous propaganda tool with which to herd/stampede people into accepting draconian totalitarian measures they would otherwise find unacceptable. It is fairly clear that those who have been pushing the threat of global warming have been enormously successful.

It is, therefore, enormously important to put forth rational arguments refuting CAGW alarmism as Patrick Moore and many others are attempting. Doing so will make it much easier to convince the public of the threat posed by totalitarian green globalists.