Another major misunderstood climate issue – models ‘underplay plant CO2 absorption’

this is just shoe fitting…….”our CO2 models were wrong…we’ll blame the plants”

I believed initially the AGW theory as it made some sense. The data seemed to back it. However, even then I totally disagreed with the prognosis that things would get worse as a result. Factually, 7 times more people die for a 1C change in temperature down than up. Therefore increasing 2C would produce a lot of saved lives not dead people. It would save lives. That’s only from the causes of pneumonia and other diseases and problems associated with colder weather. The fact is that negatives associated with warming temperatures are extremely cheap. For instance, France had 15,000 deaths from a heat wave 15 years ago. The next year there was a similar heat wave (even hotter) and 10 people died. Simple measures like drinking more water, having a fan or going to an air conditioned building occasionally, checking on relatives almost 100% eliminated deaths. The cures for deaths from colder temps are not nearly as easy to mitigate. Further as many of you are quite aware this 16% less change in CO2 than expected is clearly a result of increased biotic plant life. A LOT MORE PLANT LIFE. To generate that kind of CO2 absorbtion there must be a lot more plants. With more plants generally comes more animals. NASA satellites show a 50% increase in biotic life on the planet in the last 40 years. Measuring specific frequencies that plants absorb they are able to calculate overall the increase in plant life. This is in stark contrast to what we hear that the planet is dying. Quite the contrary all scientific evidence contradicts this. Some particular plants or animals may be suffering but one must consider the natural extinction and species introduction rates. There are 37 million species of all living things on the earth estimated. We don’t know what the natural number that die or are created every year. Therefore it is impossible to calculate an extinction rate that is abnormal or bad. It is not clear what is bad or good. How do you make judgement calls on nature? If we assume everything that man does must be bad then we still don’t know if the numbers have changed much or if any groups are changing much. Previous theories of extinction have proven 10-100 times too scary. It seems like AGW is probably about 5-10 times too scary than reality.
The temperature 5000 years ago called the climactic optimum was several degrees warmer by every estimate including AGW adherents. During this time human kind found enough plants that were able to be grown and produce food that several populations of humans around the world simultaneously established civilization and became agricultural allowing man to climb out of our hunter gatherer nomadic existence, allow specialization and civilization. It therefore seems unproven that 2 C rise is necessarily associated with negative environmental consequences. Descriptions of life at that time seem to have the nile river twice as big for instance. Predictions of droughts, massive storms don’t aren’t consistent with this. I would like to understand why the earth will react differently than it did 5,000 years ago?
Lastly, the earth over the last 300 or so years has been rising in temperature and even longer we know since the last ice age. So far every degree change that is upward has been associated with increasing human success and improvement of life. I don’t know if we can say the same for animals but our prosperity I would argue is helpful to animals as we are more enlightened and richer to help them and there is evidence that the environment and our treatment of all animals and plants increases beneficially as wealth increases. As a mathemetician, physicist there is no reason to believe that this next degree or two suddenly are bad. For that to be the case it means we are currently at the optimal temperature of the earth now. Probabilistically I am skeptical of statements that say our current situation is perfect and any variation up or down would be bad. I find that unlikely just on the face of it. No proof has been given or significant evidence that we happen to live at the “perfect” temperature.
Change produces negative and positive consequences. The probability that when studying the change the results are all negative is unbelievable. When the motivation of the authors of studies is to create alarm or their belief is that there is cause for alarm there is a virtual certainty they will find only negatives. This is the case and requires a skeptical mind to studies which show only negative or largely negative consequences. I simply don’t believe them. I wouldn’t vote a penny for any of these people to have additional funds to study things based on the quality of research we are seeing. I think we should fire the whole bunch and get a new batch of scientists to study this without an axe to grind and a objective skeptical opinion which is the “default” best position any scientist should take.
I am pretty sure any logical, scientific person would not believe the AGW theory nor the idea of negative consequences and that is why I engage scientists whenever I can to discover if they truly believe this stuff. So far I have not found many scientists who have an opinion or willing to defend an opinion. I took a global warming class at stanford and there was not any proof given for any large or catastrophic change in climate, the world or anything. All that could be explained in those weeks was some basic physics about co2 absorption and a few “facts” about this or that. No solid “science” was offered that could show any significant climate change. The professors were frustrated with my questions and they tried to change lectures to counter my points but none of them was curageous enough or capable of showing anything “provable” or even roughly like a proof that temps would climb 2-3C. No attempt was made to replicate Hansens paleontological analysis which I find extremely flawed and they must also because they didn’t even bother to try and use it. The models were clearly unprovable and consisted of unsupported unproven conjectures with high levels of errors built in. The head of Lawrence livermore climate modeling said in fact the models were bad and didn’t predict. When the class looked stunned he repeated his statement. They were bad. They didn’t work. He admitted the idea of averaging models had no statistical basis that made any sense.
Overall this whole thing is very upsetting in terms of what it means about science and science funding and science debate in the US.