Skip to main content

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is greening the earth!


Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.

http://dwahts.blogspot.co.za/2018/04/sheep-science.html?m=1

I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters.  However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link.  Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.


Furthermore, the main increase in CO²  as we warm out of the last mini ice age is warming oceans, because CO² as we know trails warming, it does not cause it. This is well documented.


Whatever the cause there seem to measurably evidenced benefits, not only in my country in a draught year, but globally.

Here are some case studies:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/record-co2-coincides-record-breaking-crop-yields-greening-globe

https://www.thegwpf.com/south-africa-set-for-biggest-maize-crop-harvest-on-record/

https://m.timesofindia.com/india/record-global-harvest-of-cereals-india-too-heads-for-a-new-high/articleshow/58187896.cms


And this article which raises the point that plant increases will actually absorb more CO² and thereby regulate modest increases but ensure no runaway increases happen. It's a natural buffer, but even so that is the smallest of many natural atmospheric, oceanic and terrestrial buffers which are known to exist.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2016-04-26/global-snapshot-shows-how-humans-are-greening-the-earth/7346382

Here is a website dedicated to basic science, the unrefuted basic science of the benefit of CO² to plants:
https://hydroloop.org/co2/

We could go on and on, but nobody contests this. The real areas of interest are who stands to gain from stopping green spending on Mercury, Lead, Solvents, Nuclear Waste, Toxic chemicals etc and redirecting them to chasing CO² ghosts?

Well fortunately I've already covered that in great detail here, I strongly suggest taking a look because I took great care to address every aspect in detail:
http://dwahts.blogspot.co.za/2018/03/scientific-consensus-is-that-consensus.html?m=1

Popular posts from this blog

Scientific Consensus is that Consensus is overturned 100% of the time

Everything you know is wrong. There is a very good reason why science succeeds more often than politics does.  Unlike politics, It's not a consensus or a vote,  it's actually method.  The scientific method. Anyone who has read this blog before probably knows I'm a lifelong science junkie as well as someone who spends thousands of hours breaking down the the political and economic agendas behind the special interest groups that guide public policy.  In many ways I'm actually uniquely qualified to tie these angles together in ways not well understood by the overwhelming majority of people.  That actually includes scientists. Scientists are notoriously naive in the political and economic forces that drive the human world.

For example if you are of the opinion that the earth has one moon, the earth revolves around the sun etc you are already wrong. Well sort of. The politicpl world is black and white, the scientific world is nuanced, see http://dwahts.blogspot.com/2018/06…

Dīvide et imperā: How To Defeat The Most Effective Social Control Weapon In Human History

Many different empires, cultures and nations have existed in history and while the details, styles, values and aesthetics keep changing, the core structure remains unchanged. In order to benefit from social coperation and steal reward in excess of the labour and value you invest, you cannot take it by brute force for extended periods of time without facing the wrath of the crowds. The crowds need to give it to you willingly or unknowingly. There was one exception to this synopsis, the Feudal System  but there is more to that than people realise, it's a post for a later day and deserves full scrutiny and parrellels do manifest. The support of the home crowd is also needed to win wars. No army has ever been effective fighting under duress, they would assemble, arm  and immediatly turn on you.


Before the current reigning Judeo-Christian Anglo American Empire of today there were other more monolithic empires that the loosely ideologically aligned old money banking dynasties, globalis…