Life on Earth was nearly doomed by too little CO2

July 2, 2017

Say it after me, folks: “Carbon dioxide is plant food, not a demon to be feared.”

Watts Up With That?

During the last ice age, too little atmospheric carbon dioxide almost eradicated mankind

Guest Essay by Dennis T. Avery

Aside from protests by Al Gore, Leonardo Di Caprio and friends, the public didn’t seem to raise its CO2 anguish much above the Russians-election frenzy when Trump exited the Paris Climate Accords.

Statistician Bjorn Lomborg had already pointed out that the Paris CO2 emission promises would cost $100 trillion dollars that no one has, and make only a 0.05 degree difference in Earth’s 2100 AD temperature. Others say perhaps a 0.2 degree C (0.3 degrees F) difference, and even that would hold only in the highly unlikely event that all parties actually kept their voluntary pledges.

What few realize, however, is that during the last Ice Age too little CO2 in the air almost eradicated mankind. That’s when much-colder water in oceans (that were 400 feet shallower than today) sucked most…

View original post 1,075 more words


Report: Global growth in CO2 emissions stagnates

November 27, 2015

We may have to put off the end of the world for a bit. Al Gore, climate cultists hardest hit.

Watts Up With That?

From the “just in time for Paris” and “impending doom canceled” department comes this report from the EUROPEAN COMMISSION JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE:

After a decade of rapid growth in global CO2 emissions, which increased at an average annual rate of 4%, much smaller increases were registered in 2012 (0.8%), 2013 (1.5%) and 2014 (0.5%). In 2014, when the emissions growth was almost at a standstill, the world’s economy continued to grow by 3%. The trend over the last three years thus sends an encouraging signal on the decoupling of CO2 emissions from global economic growth. However, it is still too early to confirm a positive global trend. For instance India, with its emerging economy and large population, increased its emissions by 7.8% and became the fourth largest emitter globally.

CO2-emissions-stagnates

The EU continues to show leadership on CO2 emission reductions

In 2014, despite an overall increase of 1.4% in…

View original post 462 more words


Hawkesbury River Study: CO2 improves tree growth, drought tolerance

October 17, 2015

Yet another example of how increasing CO2 (aka “plant food”) is actually good for the Earth, the cult of Climastrology notwithstanding.

Watts Up With That?

Hawkesbury River, NSW, Australia - Uploaded by berichard, Author maarjaara - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hawkesbury_River_1.jpg Hawkesbury River, NSW, Australia – Uploaded by berichard,
Author maarjaara – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hawkesbury_River_1.jpg

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to Belinda Medlyn, a theoretical ­biologist with Western Sydney University, trees exposed to enhanced CO2, in the gigantic open air Hawkesbury River climate study, grow 35% faster than their neighbours in the control group.

“Either they’re getting more carbon for the same amount of water, or they’re getting the same amount of carbon but using less water.”

Since 2012, the researchers have pumped extra CO2into three of six basketball court-sized rings of 80-year-old bush. This has raised the CO2 concentration in the three plots to about 550 parts per million, up from the ambient level of 400 ppm.

Measurements revealed that for each unit of water absorbed, the trees in the CO2-enriched rings reaped 35 per cent more carbon than the trees in the control plots.

Read more: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/trees-reap-benefits-ofnbspclimate-change/story-e6frg8y6-1227572132164

The abstract…

View original post 455 more words


(Video) The truth about CO2, and the corruption of Greenpeace

July 27, 2015

Two videos today from Prager University, both narrated by Dr. Patrick Moore, a PhD in Ecology from the University of British Columbia and one of the founders of the environmental activist group Greenpeace.

In the first, Dr. Moore discusses the nonsense surrounding the almost superstitious dread of carbon dioxide among climate alarmists. Notably, and as has been mentioned several times on this blog and elsewhere, Dr. Moore points out the inconvenient truth that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has in the past been up to ten times higher than it is now, without the world ending. That, in fact, we are still in an era of relatively low CO2 concentrations. Also, he mentions a truth so obvious that only climate hysterics need to be told it: CO2 is plant food. In fact, the ideal atmospheric concentration of CO2 is 4-5 higher than it is now. We can already see the benefits of increasing CO2 as the Earth grows greener, contrary to the Cult of Climate Change’s dire predictions.

But enough of me ranting. Here’s Dr. Moore, not ranting:

The second video is Dr. Moore’s tale of how he came to be a founder of Greenpeace, in its day an organization dedicated to a mix of scientific conservationism and anti-war politics. He relates how the movement changed over time to an anti-scientific, almost anti-human dogma, which at its farcical worst declared banning the element chlorine as a goal, going so far as to label it “the Devil’s element.”

Nothing religious or cultish about that.

Here’s Dr. Moore explaining why he finally had to leave Greenpeace:

That’s the trouble with organizations that get captured by their most ardent activists: they drive out the moderates who could act as a brake on their worst tendencies, which, left unchecked, wreck their credibility.


Climate Craziness of the Week: Center for Biological Diversity petitions EPA to list CO2 as a ‘toxic substance’

July 1, 2015

Right. We’d better ban Humans now, since we all breathe out poison. And I wouldn’t be surprised if EPA got right on that one.

Watts Up With That?

thescream-co2From the “everybody breathes out poison” department. WUWT reader “Hell_Is_Like_Newark” writes:

The Center for Biological Diversity has issued a petition to get CO2 listed as a toxic substance.  CO2 will join the ranks of dioxin, cyanide, etc.

For Immediate Release, June 30, 2015

Contact: Miyoko Sakashita, (415) 632-5308, miyoko@biologicaldiversity.org

Legal Petition Urges EPA to Save Sea Life, Regulate CO2 as Toxic Substance

WASHINGTON— With the world’s oceans and sea life facing an unprecedented crisis from ocean acidification, the Center for Biological Diversity and former Environmental Protection Agency scientist Dr. Donn Viviani today formally petitioned the Obama administration to regulate carbon dioxide under the federal Toxic Substances Control Act. The first-of-its-kind petition under the toxics act seeks widespread reduction of CO2 because it contributes to ocean acidification, driving the destruction of coral reefs and threatening nearly every form of sea life, from tiny plankton to fish, whales and…

View original post 391 more words


EPA’s draconian new plan: Is a 1% Cut in CO2 emissions worth $50 billion and 15,000 jobs annually?

May 14, 2015

We have met the enemy, and it is the EPA.

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Steven Capozzola, CAP Media

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing to finalize its Clean PowerPlan, which aims to reduce power plant carbon dioxide emissions by 30% from 2005 levels over the next 15 years.

Looking at some of the best-case scenarios for CO2 reductions, the plan could potentially cut roughly 300 million tons of CO2 annually.

Because global man-made CO2 emissions reach roughly 30 billion tons annually, it’s estimated that the EPA plan could result in a possible 1% reduction in annual man-made CO2.

Overall, man-made CO2 accounts for only 4% of total atmospheric CO2. So the true atmospheric reduction in CO2 from the EPA plan would be approximately 0.04%.

The cost for this plan is estimated at $50 billion annually, with the loss of roughly 15,000 U.S. jobs each year. Increases in household utility billscould reach $100 billion annually.

These high costs have…

View original post 177 more words


Plants encouraged as CO2 levels reach 400 ppm

May 10, 2015

Something else climate alarmists don’t like to consider, because the truth is an abomination in their cult: rising levels of CO2 are generally good for plant life, as CO2 is plant food, and more plants means more food for humans. Maybe that’s why they don’t like it, since climate alarmists also tend to be Malthusians at heart.

Watts Up With That?

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball is writing on behalf of the plants.

The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports that global monthly CO2 levels reached 400 ppm. They present this as threatening news, but it is good news for plants and animals. I was involved in abrief to the US Supreme Court opposing the EPAactions on CO2. I proposed we seek Power of Attorney (POA) for the plants. We would vote on behalf of the plants against any attempts to reduce atmospheric CO2 from the current claimed 400 ppm and for any increase, at least to a level of 1200 ppm.

Seeking POA sounds like an environmental stunt for the Sierra Club, or all those who claim to care about plants and animals. Why aren’t they doing it? Why aren’t they proclaiming the good news for the plants and animals they say they care about? The answer…

View original post 822 more words


New Research Finds Earth Even Less Sensitive To CO2 Than Previously Thought

September 25, 2014

More bad news for climate cultists: for their theory of anthropogenic climate change to work, the man-generated CO2 pumped into the atmosphere has to play a key role in an accelerating “greenhouse” effect. Only… the data doesn’t seem to support that. Cue wails and the rending of garments.

Watts Up With That?

As first reported on WUWT yesterday via our in-flight news office over the Atlantic, climate sensitivity is now seen to be even less, thanks to the new peer reviewed paper from Nic Lewis and Judith Curry. This press release comes today via The GWPF.

Research Used Data From This Year’s IPCC 5th Assessment Report

London, 25 September: A new paper published in the prestigious journal Climate Dynamics find that the effect of carbon dioxide emissions on global temperatures is likely to be even smaller than previously thought.

Earlier this year, in a widely discussed report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, climate researcher Nic Lewis and science writer Marcel Crok put forward a new estimate of the Earth’s climate sensitivity based on observational data, finding that it was much less alarming than suggested by computer simulations of the Earth’s climate.

Now, Lewis and well known American climate science…

View original post 372 more words


More Green dreams shattered

January 10, 2012

Two posts at Watts Up With That bring news that that ought to turn the Gaea-cultists’ sweet dreams into nightmares. First, a study from Civitas in the UK demolishes any idea that wind-power is a practical, economic alternate energy source:

The focus on wind-power, driven by the renewables targets, is preventing Britain from effectively reducing CO2 emissions, while crippling energy users with additional costs, according to a new Civitas report. The report finds that wind-power is unreliable and requires back-up power stations to be available in order to maintain a consistent electricity supply to households and businesses. This means that energy users pay twice: once for the window-dressing of renewables, and again for the fossil fuels that the energy sector continues to rely on. Contrary to the implied message of the Government’s approach, the analysis shows that wind-power is not a low-cost way of reducing emissions.

(Full report here (PDF))

They have to pay lip-service to the idea of reducing CO2 emissions, even though there’s no credible evidence of a man-caused greenhouse effect from CO2, because of the success the Green Statists in and outside of government have had in demonizing a gas that’s essentially plant food. The key takeaways, though, are these: because of the unreliability of wind, conventional power stations have to be kept running on standby to handle those times when the turbines aren’t running, either because there’s no wind, or the wind is blowing too fast. That means costs to the consumer skyrocket, as UK residents are finding out. (And we will, too, if Obama and the Eco-lobby in the US have their way.)

But wait, there’s more! It turns out that wind-turbines actually increase the use of CO2 -spewing fossil fuels:

In a comprehensive quantitative analysis of CO2 emissions and wind-power, Dutch physicist C. le Pair has recently shown that deploying wind turbines on “normal windy days” in the Netherlands actually increased fuel (gas) consumption, rather than saving it, when compared to electricity generation with modern high-efficiency gas turbines. Ironically and paradoxically the use of wind farms therefore actually increased CO2 emissions, compared with using efficient gas-fired combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) at full power. [p. 30]

Ooops…

Second, you know all those fears of “ocean acidification,” the Green Left’s latest environmental bogeyman? Turns out it’s another …say it after me… natural process:

It turns out that far from being a stable pH, spots all over the world are constantly changing. One spot in the ocean varied by an astonishing 1.4 pH units regularly. All our human emissions are projected by models to change the world’s oceans by about 0.3 pH units over the next 90 years, and that’s referred to as “catastrophic”, yet we now know that fish and some calcifying critters adapt naturally to changes far larger than that every year, sometimes in just a month, and in extreme cases, in just a day.

Data was collected by 15 individual SeaFET sensors in seven types of marine habitats.  Four sites were fairly stable (1, which includes the open ocean, and also sites 2,3,4) but most of the rest were highly variable (esp site 15 near Italy and 14 near Mexico) . On a monthly scale the pH varies by 0.024 to 1.430 pH units.

The authors draw two conclusions: (1) most non-open ocean sites vary a lot, and (2) and some spots vary so much they reach the “extreme” pH’s forecast for the doomsday future scenarios on a daily (a daily!) basis.

pH varies widely and often, yet life adapts and prospers, in a process that’s gone on for hundreds of millions, if not billions of years. No need to invoke the Demon Man and his evil capitalism to frighten people into obedience and submission to a bunch of liberty and economy-killing  transnational bureaucracies.

Though I’m sure they’ll try, anyway.

Keep dreaming, cultists.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Next time someone tells you CO2 causes global warming…

September 18, 2011

Show them this chart:

(Click on the diagram to enlarge.)

The blue line represents estimates of average global temperature, while the black records the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If there’s a correlation (1) here between rising temperate and rising CO2, I sure don’t see it.

The authors at Geocraft point out that only twice in the Earth’s history have CO2 levels been as low as they are now. In fact, if it were to go much lower, photosynthesis would shut off and plant life would die. (2)

Talk about “unintended consequences” should the “Save Gaea” crowd succeed at geo-engineering!

via Power Line.

Footnotes:
(1) In fact, there’s some evidence that a rise in CO2 lags a temperature rise, not precedes it.
(2) Of course, light and heat play major roles, too, but the point is that we are much closer to the minimum than any dangerously high levels.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Merry Christmas, Global-Warming Cultists!

December 25, 2010

Here’s my present to you: research showing that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are consistent with the warming and cooling of the oceans, with about a 250-year lag:

We find that the ~250-year lag time is consistent. CO2 levels peaked 250 years after the Medieval Warm Period peaked and the Little Ice Age cooling began and CO2 bottomed out 240 years after the trough of the Little Ice Age. In a fashion similar to the glacial/interglacial lags in the ice cores, the plant stomata data indicate that CO2 has lagged behind temperature changes by about 250 years over the last millennium. The rise in CO2 that began in 1860 is most likely the result of warming oceans degassing.

Be sure to click through for all the pretty charts and analysis.

See? Aren’t I nice to you? 

via Heliogenic Climate Change


Physicist throws global warming under the bus

September 20, 2010

Shrieks of “HERESY!!” and “APOSTASY!!” must be echoing through the Cathedral of the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming right about now, as a former University of Ottawa professor says that fossil fuels are insignificant to the amount of CO2 in the air:

The present (2010) historic maximum of anthropogenic (caused by humans) fossil fuel burning is only 8% or so of global primary production (GPP) (both expressed as kilograms of carbon per year, kg-C/y). GPP is the rate at which new biomass (living matter) is produced on the whole planet. And of course all biomass can in principle be considered fuel that could be burned with oxygen (O2) to produce CO2 gas, H2O water, energy, and an ash residue.

This shows the extent to which anthropogenic energy production from fossil fuel burning is small in comparison to the sun’s energy delivery to Earth, since biomass primary production results from the sun’s energy via photosynthesis.

(…)

Given all the fuss that is made about the present rate of fossil fuel burning (2010; 0.8 x 10^13 kg-C/y where 10^13 = 10,000,000,000,000 with thirteen zeros), it is important to keep in mind that this represents an amount of CO2 release comparable to or somewhat less than the CO2 released by simple breathing from humankind and its domestic animals [LINK]. The combined biomass of humankind and its domestic animals (cattle, sheep, goats, chickens, pigs, pets, etc.) is in turn estimated to be only 0.04% of Earth’s living biomass (all expressed as kilograms of carbon, kg-C), which is a lot more CO2-producing breathing. (Ants, for example, are estimated to represent ten to one hundred times the biomass of humankind and ants can be argued to have “transformed” the planet and its ecology far more than humans.)

Emphasis added.

Dr. Rancourt has a very Left/Progressive outlook, but a portion of his conclusion is worth quoting:

For left progressives to collaborate with First World governments that practice global extortion and geopolitical wars in order to pass carbon schemes to undemocratically manage and control the developments of non-First-World communities and sovereign states is obscene, racist, and cruelly cynical.

This conservative finds it hard to disagree. Well, except for that “global extortion” and “geopolitical wars” part. Can’t have everything…

But he touches on a good point: the AGW cultists and alarmists not only want to cripple Western economies and establish bureaucratic-statist control over the lives of individual citizens, but they want to keep poor countries poor, too, by denying them the very means the industrial and post-industrial nations used to become wealthy. It’s no wonder that both China and India have refused to sign on to the global-warming farce; the measures the alarmists demand we take to fight a problem that does not exist would absolutely derail their economic development.

In the great scheme of things, this is just another small crack in the vaunted scientific consensus. By itself, it means little. But, the more cracks appear, the sooner comes the day when the AGW cathedral collapses.

via WUWT

UPDATE: Is the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming the Beauvais Cathedral of our time? Via Dan Collins.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


How many feet can Al Gore stick in his big mouth?

December 16, 2009

The Goracle, speaking at the  UN Copenhagen Climate Change Farce Conference:

And he urged the world to complete a global deal by July, assuming the Copenhagen summit ends this week with a political agreement by all the countries.

Describing a “runaway melt” of the Earth’s ice, rising tree mortality and prospects of severe water scarcities, Gore told a UN audience: “In the face of effects like these, clear evidence that only reckless fools would ignore, I feel a sense of frustration” at the lack of agreement so far.

“Rising tree mortality?” Really? Should I go hug my favorite oak before it dies from drought, gets blown over by gale-force storms created by Man’s folly, and then floats away on the rising seas?

Umm… No. Nope. Not at all.

Al is ignoring inconvenient facts again:

Satellite data for the real world (not the one Mr. Gore lives in) can help give us an idea.

Global


Globally net primary productivity (NPP) has increased. As the IPCC’s WG II report (p. 106) says:

Satellite-derived estimates of global net primary production from satellite data of vegetation indexes indicate a 6% increase from 1982 to 1999, with large increases in tropical ecosystems (Nemani et al., 2003) [Figure 1]. The study by Zhou et al. (2003), also using satellite data, confirm that the Northern Hemisphere vegetation activity has increased in magnitude by 12% in Eurasia and by 8% in NorthAmerica from 1981 to 1999

Read the rest to see how vegetation is actually expanding worldwide.  And, contra the EPA, the trees seem quite happy with rising CO2 levels.

Tell me again why anyone takes bombastic fraud seriously?

RELATED: More Goracle gaffes.

(hat tip: David Freddoso)


Saving the planet takes your breath away

December 1, 2009

Literally. The head of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri, has declared that regulating carbon emissions may not be enough to save the Earth from catastrophic climate change. We must remove carbon from the air itself!

Carbon must be sucked from air, says IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri

In an interview with The Times, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), proposed that new techniques should be applied to help to mop up atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide that have been pumped into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels.

“There are enough technologies in existence to allow for mitigation,” he said. “At some point we will have to cross over and start sucking some of those gases out of the atmosphere.”

Speaking days before the start of the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, Dr Pachauri, who collected the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the IPCC with Al Gore, said that such a strategy needed to be pursued as a matter of urgency.

The Indian scientist, 69, also said that the target adopted by the 192 governments that are due to attend the conference, of restricting average global temperature rises to less than 2C (3.6F), may be insufficient to prevent catastrophic warming impacts such as a rise in sea levels of between 0.5m and 1.4m (1.6ft and 4.6ft) and enough to devastate many coastal cities around the world such as Shanghai, Calcutta and Dhaka. Instead, he said, a 1.5C rise was a safer target.

Dr Pachauri raised the prospect of so-called geo-engineering, whereby carbon dioxide is actively stripped from the atmosphere. A range of techniques have been proposed including seeding artificial clouds over oceans to reflect sunlight back into space, sowing the oceans with iron ore to boost plankton growth and using carbon capture and storage technology to fix emissions from power stations.

Right. So to deal with a “crisis” that now has every indication of being created by green statists in government and their hysteria-pimp enablers at CRU and other institutes of “higher learning,” we not only have to cripple the most productive economies in the world that have created the highest standard of living humanity has ever seen, we must re-engineer the atmosphere itself!

They laughed me in Vienna, the fools!

So, who is this Pachauri guy, anyway, besides being the head of the IPCC and the man who would save us from carbon dioxide? Why, he’s also the Great and Powerful Oz trusted scientist who assures us there is no problem with research at CRU. None at all. Nothing to see here. Move along:

“The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report,” he told The Guardian.

(…)

“So I think it is a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which insures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening.”

(via The Jawa Report)

Transparent, eh? No possibility, says he? Oh, really?

Anyway, back to Dr. Lizardo’s Pachauri’s suggestions, perhaps he needs to review the literature on plants and the oceans as carbon sinks, since the balance between airborne and absorbed CO2 has hardly changed since 1850. If there is no excess of carbon in the atmosphere, then there is no need for great, big devices to scrub the atmosphere, or huge government programs to build them – or aging Indian scientists anxious to get their hands on research grants to design those devices, grants that would be funded by the taxes those governments would have to impose.

Lord, save me from the people who would save me.

(via Heliogenic Climate Change)


If only the Goracle had been there!

November 18, 2009

Apparently, new research (you know, that empirical evidence thing, not just computer models) shows that Antarctica has been far warmer in the recent geologic past – all without Man’s intervention:

A new study of Antarctica’s past climate reveals that temperatures during the warm periods between ice ages (interglacials) may have been higher than previously thought. The latest analysis of ice core records suggests that Antarctic temperatures may have been up to 6°C warmer than the present day.

The findings, reported this week by scientists from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), the Open University and University of Bristol in the journal Nature could help us understand more about rapid Antarctic climate changes.

Previous analysis of ice cores has shown that the climate consists of ice ages and warmer interglacial periods roughly every 100,000 years. This new investigation shows temperature ‘spikes’ within some of the interglacial periods over the last 340,000 years. This suggests Antarctic temperature shows a high level of sensitivity to greenhouse gases at levels similar to those found today.

Lead author Louise Sime of British Antarctic Survey said,

“We didn’t expect to see such warm temperatures, and we don’t yet know in detail what caused them. But they indicate that Antarctica’s climate may have undergone rapid shifts during past periods of high CO2.”

During the last warm period, about 125,000 years ago, sea level was around 5 metres higher than today.

Of course, nothing yet establishes that CO2 is a cause of warming, not an effect of it. That the temperature was much higher then at CO2 levels “similar to today” hints at an independent factor. Obviously, more research is needed, hopefully without the a priori assumption that CO2 causes global warming.

Regardless, the key fact to note here is that this happened in the past with no human input.

(hat tip: Heliogenic Climate Change)


Facts defy the Goracle

November 15, 2009

Don’t they realize the science is settled? Why bother to continue research and ask “if” when the Inconvenient Truth requires us to ACT NOW?

Maybe its because, if we do, we’ll find the real truth: that anthropogenic global warming is a gigantic fraud.

Controversial new climate change results

New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.

This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.

The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.

The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.

I emphasized that last part because it’s important: the results from Bristol are based on empirical observation and the geologic record, not computer models that are by nature limited to the assumptions humans program into them, assumptions that have been shown to be fundamentally flawed.

The central argument of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is that Man is pumping so much CO2 into the atmosphere that the the Earth’s ecosystem cannot absorb it all, and thus the excess is leading to dangerous temperature increases that will have catastrophic effects. The findings of Dr. Knorr, if they hold up to testing and replication, destroy the foundation of the AGW argument. If indeed there is no measurable excess of CO2 in the atmosphere, then there is no basis for the feared greenhouse effect. Thus the frantic effort to get the United States and other countries to hobble their economies in the name of “fighting climate change” is at best a Chicken Little moment of hysteria among true believers or, at worst, a mask behind which to hide the real statist agenda of extending government control over every aspect of our lives.

And they have to do it before the inconvenient facts wreck their Holy Truth.

LINKS: Watt’s Up with That calls the Bristol findings a bombshell. Heliogenic Climate Change discusses how the Arctic was much warmer in the recent geologic past than it is now. Fausta informs us that the Green Statist crowd is giving up on their latest attempt to impose a global Waxman-Markey fiasco on the world. Sister Toldjah relates how the US Environmental Protection Agency has threatened two of it lawyers who have dared to challenge AGW orthodoxy.