The benefits of Carbon Dioxide

The Science and Public Policy Institute has released a ground-breaking book chronicling the many benefits of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.  The 55 benefits discussed are drawn exclusively on the peer-reviewed literature.

Many books and reports rail against mankind’s usage of fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil because of the carbon dioxide or CO2 that their combustion releases into the atmosphere.

Indeed, this phenomenon is routinely castigated in numerous print and visual venues as a result of the unproven predictions of catastrophic CO2-induced global warming that are derived from theoretical computer-driven simulations of the state of earth’s climate decades and centuries into the future.

Now, however, comes a book that does just the opposite by describing a host of real-world benefits that the controversial atmospheric trace gas provides, first to earth’s plants and then to the people and animals that depend upon them for their sustenance.

The book is The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment, written by the son/father team of Craig D. and Sherwood B. Idso.  It is encyclopedic in nature, with fifty-five different subjects treated and arranged in alphabetical order — starting with Air Pollution Stress (Non-Ozone) and ending with Wood Density — each of which entries comes with its own set of reference citations.

The book is subtitled How humanity and the rest of the biosphere will prosper from this amazing trace gas that so many have wrongfully characterized as a dangerous air pollutant.

Says Dr. Craig Idso, “It may not be everything you ‘always wanted to know’ about the bright side of the issue; but it illuminates a number of significant aspects of earth’s biosphere and its workings, as well as mankind’s reliance on the biosphere for food and numerous other material necessities that are hardly ever mentioned by the UN IPCC or the mainstream media.”

The book is so unique a reference source that it belongs in the library of every organization or institution concerned about the issues of CO2 enhancement and derived public policy initiatives.

Brief synopses of each of the 55 sections of the book may be found on the SPPI [scienceandpublicpolicy.org] website and that of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change at www.co2science.org

The book can be ordered from Vales Lake Press,  http://www.valeslake.com/bookmart.htm

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Brian H

It should definitely be subsidized to the max. Free coal-plant-generated electricity for all, sez I!
🙂

Congrats, father-son Dr. Idso. More CO2, more plant growth, more food production, stable food prices despite ever-rising global population, more humiliation to alarmist-Malthusian cranks like Paul Krugman.

Richard

I Guess that in the first few paragraphs the 2 behind CO fell off.
A very CO rich environment isn’t very benificial since we would all die from it.
[Fixed, thanx.]

Ted Maley

May I suggest that the SPPI sends a complimentary copy to Prince Charles in the UK. He has long taken an interest in environmental matters. It may help him to take a more balanced view in his comments.

Patrick Davis

Interesting read however I fear the book, and the institute, will be ridiclued by alarmists if the info at the following link is anything to go by.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute

This will surely be mandated as a compulsory text in all classrooms.
/sarc

About time there was some pushback against the baseless canard that “carbon” is a dangerous pollutant.
And @Patrick Davis: what, exactly, is ridiculous about the SPPI or its supporters? Are they any more ridiculous than the WWF, Treehugger, etc?

Btway, I also plugged this book here, including the earlier book “Climate Change Reconsidered”, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2011/02/co2-is-useful-gas.html

interested non scientist

Because of agenda driven science and with the support of the media and Governments we are being dragged back into the an intellectual dark ages.
Books like this are vital from liberating people from the fear and stigma thats been imposed on them unwittingly through the msm though without the promotion and support of the msm it will only gain so much traction.
Its just not science if it’s not on TV…/sarc

John Marshall

The Idso’s write sane and science based articles and this book must be in the same vein.

Patrick Davis

“Smokey says:
February 11, 2011 at 1:05 am”
I said the book, and institute, will be ridiculed by ALARMISTS (That is AGW alamists etc) if the info at the site I link to is anything to go by.
From the site “The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a global warming SKEPTICS GROUP which appears to primarily be the work of Robert Ferguson, its President; its website draws heavily on papers written by CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON.”
Personally, I think there is lots of useful info at that site.

Alex the skeptic

Ted Maley says:
February 11, 2011 at 12:53 am
May I suggest that the SPPI sends a complimentary copy to Prince Charles in the UK. He has long taken an interest in environmental matters. It may help him to take a more balanced view in his comments.
+++++++++++++++++
We all know that Prince Charles is a proponent of the ‘talking -to-plants-is-good-for-them’ theory. Well, in fact it may really make sense, not because plants appreciate right royal nice words, as the royal prince may think, but actually, by putting one’s mouth and nostrils close to their leaves, which increases the CO2 content to their immediate surround due to the exhaled air while breathing…………Just thinking.

Alex the skeptic

Interesting read: It’s not only land biomass which benefits from increased CO2, but also the hydrosphere biomass increases with CO2. From Andrew Bolt’s blog on the Herald Sun:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
Andrew Bolt – Friday, February 11, 11 (06:50 pm)
If you want more fish on your plate, fire up the barbecue, the car, the lights, the afterburner….
From a University of Queensland paper published by Global Change Biology:
Climate change is altering the rate and distribution of primary production in the world’s oceans…. We simulated the effects of change in primary production on diverse marine ecosystems across a wide latitudinal range in Australia using the marine food web model Ecosim…
Under a plausible climate change scenario, primary production will increase around Australia and generally this benefits fisheries catch and value and leads to increased biomass of threatened marine animals such as turtles and sharks.

Alexander K

Hats off to the Drs Idso – this text should be in every high school science classroom in the literate world. Knowledge is the only antidote for superstition and fairy tales used to frighten the ignorant.

tango

this book should be in all schools in the world regardless of the left wing school teachers who tell our kids a load of BS .the ALARMISTS will one day be brought to trial for there actions concerning so called global warming

A C Osborn

Can that be ordered Internationally from http://www.valeslake.com/bookmart.htm ?

sHx

About time!
CO2 has been demonised for too long.
I am looking forward to reading it from cover to cover.

Dave Springer

CO2 a benefit? Who’d a thunk such a thing? /sarc
As we say in the Corps “No screaming eagle sh*t!”
Maybe Anthony or somebody can get a campaign started with the goal of sending 10,000 copies of this book to Lisa Jackson from 10,000 different people for distribution to every dumbass at the EPA who thinks CO2 is a dangerous pollutant.

Edim

The thing is, we can not really influence/increase atmospheric CO2 concentration significantly. Natural sources and sinks are overwhelming, IMHO.
We will be able to test this hypothesis in the next few years/decades with the coming global cooling. I predict CO2 concentrations will start dropping too (ice buidup and cooling oceans) without much lag.

peter_ga

We are carbon based lifeforms after all.

Baa Humbug

Considering CO2 is the first link in the global food chain, it follows that more of this food must be good for something(s)
Name me [a] species that does not benefit from the abundance of food.

fenbeagle

There are benefits? …..And after Prince Charles has just changed the Guard at Buckingham Palace?….
http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/

lenbilen

They published a book I can recommend
It tells CO2 is our very best friend.
The warming is done
saturated, we won.
Too hard for you warmists to comprehend?

Lonnie E. Schubert

“http://www.transworldnews.com/www.co2science.org” is what I get from the link to CO2Science. I think that needs fixed. (In the penultimate paragraph.)

Lonnie E. Schubert

In the penultimate paragraph, “Brief synopses of each of the 55 sections of the book may be found on the SPPI [scienceandpublicpolicy.org] website and that of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change at http://www.co2science.org” I get the link as “http://www.transworldnews.com/www.co2science.org”, which does not work. I believe a fix is in order.

UK Sceptic

An excellent companion tome for The Hockey Stick Illusion

Garacka

I think we need an phrase and acronym.
How about; Human Induced Thriving for Everyone (HITE).

Noelle

“The book is so unique a reference source that it belongs in the library of every organization or institution concerned about the issues of CO2 enhancement and derived public policy initiatives.”
Interesting comment, Anthony. You wouldn’t say that about the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, which has far more scientists and far more peer reviewed scientific publications behind it than this one. Why is that?

LeeHarvey

Baa Humbug says:
February 11, 2011 at 4:18 am
Name me [a] species that does not benefit from the abundance of food.

Odonellus Rosei? Gorica Alberto?

Ian W

Perhaps someone should ensure that all members of Congress and all Senators get a copy. I know they have difficulty reading Bills, but perhaps one of their staffers would read it and advise them.
They need to realize what it was that helped defuse Paul Ehrlich’s ‘Population Bomb’.

RockyRoad

“The desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose.”
—Isaiah 35:1
Increased atmospheric CO2 augments plant growth and reduces water requirements–together these two factors are turning deserts worldwide into green, productive vegetation. (Existing agricultural areas are also experiencing the benefits.)
Consider the ramifications in light of the fact that over one-third of the earth’s land surface is devoid of significant vegetation. Over one-third!

What if Global Warmers/Climate Changes, disrupters/Malthusians/Sierra-Clubists/Green and Red-Greens/Recycling fundamentalists, etc. really are ALIENS, living beings composed of Silicon instead of Carbon?..That would explain their fanaticism against our friendly carbon dioxide! 🙂

Latitude

How stupid is it to want to lower CO2 levels, when CO2 levels have been dropping ever since we evolved.
We should be worried and studying why CO2 levels started out so high, why almost everything we know evolved when CO2 levels were that high…
…and why CO2 levels have been dropping ever since
A sane person would be thinking is it possible for CO2 levels to naturally drop so low….
…that everything dies

Francisco

Anthony, clicking on the link you give above for
http://www.co2science.org
redirects to:
http://www.transworldnews.com/www.co2science.org
whichis a missing page

The Idsos, along with Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon and Art Robinson, are the Pioneering Heroes of resistance to the Carbon Cult. They were on the battle lines before anyone else, and showed the truth to most of us directly or indirectly.

John Brookes

I’m lookng forward to their next volume, “The Marvels of Methane”, followed by “A Million and One New Uses for Chloroflourocarbons “, and “Mustard Gas, Its not all bad news!”

David

Dave Springer says:
February 11, 2011 at 3:25 am
CO2 a benefit? Who’d a thunk such a thing? /sarc
As we say in the Corps “No screaming eagle sh*t!”
Maybe Anthony or somebody can get a campaign started with the goal of sending 10,000 copies of this book to Lisa Jackson from 10,000 different people for distribution to every dumbass at the EPA who thinks CO2 is a dangerous pollutant.
Dave, this is a great idea. This book is necessary. Lets do it. As Smokey intimated, about time we take an offensive position.

SteveE

Baa Humbug says:
February 11, 2011 at 4:18 am
Considering CO2 is the first link in the global food chain, it follows that more of this food must be good for something(s)
Name me [a] species that does not benefit from the abundance of food.
———————–
Humans… You’ve just got to look at the rates of obesity in countries like the US and UK to see that!

imoira

A C Osborn @2:48: From Toronto, I just ordered a copy.

Richard S Courtney

Noelle:
At February 11, 2011 at 5:36 am you quote Anthony Watts saying:
“The book is so unique a reference source that it belongs in the library of every organization or institution concerned about the issues of CO2 enhancement and derived public policy initiatives.”
And you ask;
“Interesting comment, Anthony. You wouldn’t say that about the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, which has far more scientists and far more peer reviewed scientific publications behind it than this one. Why is that?”
May I suggest the reason could be that the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report is tripe.
Numbers of people and publications prove nothing. Only empirical evidence proves anything, and the two Idso (each of whom I have had the privilege of meeting) provide empirical data in abundance to support all they say.
But, of course, to a true believer mere evidence pales to insignificance when compared to the IPCC’s untrue anecdotes about disappearing himalayan glaciers, imaginary threats of increased storms (that are actually reducing in both severity and frequency), assertions of acclerating sea level rise (that is not happenening), etc.
Richard

R. Gates

Perhaps the American Medical Association should print a pamphlet about the benefits of carbon dioxide in the human bloodstream. Of course, they’d have to mention that there is a RANGE in which carbon dioxide is beneficial, below which or above which, the system undergoes some unpleasant changes.

They left out GW as one of the beneficial effects — CO2 does have some warming GHG effect, so if present CO2 trends continue, wastelands like Siberia and Minnesota ‘-) may eventually become habitable.
In the longer run, CO2 warming may ward off the next, otherwise inevitable ice age. According to two recent articles by Dana Royer surveying atmospheric CO2 estimates over the past 550 million (not thousand) years, concentrations have ordinarily been 1000-3000 ppm (with no detrimental effects on corals or clams), while concentrations under 500 ppm have been associataed with eras of glaciation. It’s not clear what the casuality is — does low CO2 cause catastrophic cooling, or does cool weather cause low atmospheric CO2? — but it might be worth a shot.

R. Gates

Latitude says:
February 11, 2011 at 5:57 am
How stupid is it to want to lower CO2 levels, when CO2 levels have been dropping ever since we evolved.
_______
Depends on how far back you want to take the human family tree I suppose. We’ve enjoyed a relatively range-bound level of CO2 for the past 800,000 years at least, with it generally varying from 180 to 280 ppm, as it fluctuated in perfect unison with Milanokovitch cycles and glacial periods, such that there has been NO DOWNWARD TREND over this period. See http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/fig_tab/nature06949_F2.html
It is of course, only the last few hundred years that it broke significantly out of this range with the industrial age of humans.

Scottish Sceptic

Frostbite says:
February 11, 2011 at 5:54 am
What if Global Warmers/Climate Changes, disrupters/Malthusians/Sierra-Clubists/Green and Red-Greens/Recycling fundamentalists, etc. really are ALIENS, living beings composed of Silicon instead of Carbon?
There’s no doubt some enterprising film crew are already shooting the movie!
Seriously though, I keep wondering Holywood is going to make of this now.
I’ve already got Danny DeVito lined up as Mann?
I think Steve Furst (comedy star of children’s TV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Furst) would be ideal for Jones.
Any idea for Anthony? McAlpine?

Urederra

Kudos to the Idsos

Paul Pierett

Thank God, Finally another break through.
I mentioned in GreenFrye blog run by alarmists that Florida’s climate has become greener in the last 30 years.
Might as well talk to a wall.
Paul

Noelle says:
February 11, 2011 at 5:36 am
Interesting comment, Anthony. You wouldn’t say that about the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, which has far more scientists and far more peer reviewed scientific publications behind it than this one. Why is that?

Tel you what… rather than use Anthony’s valuable time — here is a link to another site which has some articles on the IPCC documentation and the validity of the peer review process. Donna did a significant survey of the IPCC documentation. It has been widely reported — but maybe you missed it?
http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/
A few excerpts… enjoy!
Opinions regarding how the IPCC deals with errors are diverse. They can also be provocative. One IPCC official thinks public scrutiny of its reports should be discouraged.
“According to scientists who’ve helped write its reports, the IPCC is not a scientific body first and foremost. Rather, its primary purpose is to lay the necessary groundwork so that an international climate change treaty can be negotiated.”
“IPCC insiders say non-peer-reviewed literature is essential and unavoidable when they write one of the world’s most important reports. Yet chairman Pachauri has, for years, insisted only peer-reviewed material gets used. Why haven’t scientific organizations set the record straight”

For some time I have been telling anyone who would listen,
“CO2 IS GOOD FOR PLANTS, GOOD FOR THE EARTH, AND GOOD FOR YOU!”
Time for a bumper sticker!
/Mr Lynn

Olen

They should be called to testify before the congress. It would provide a break from fantasy after Jackson’s testimony.

1DandyTroll

@RockyRoad
“over one-third of the earth’s land surface is devoid of significant vegetation. Over one-third!”
Consider the sizes of Greenland and Antarctica then you’re not left with that much desert really. :p