Hump day hilarity – Told you so!

Josh writes: There’s been a lot of Twittering over an article in Nature Climate Change about the greening of the planet. It might not exactly be ground breaking science, it is after all something sceptics have been pointing out for some time, but it is great to see the story in Nature all the same.

But to get alarmists to admit this is good news will, I suspect, be like pulling hen’s teeth.


Cartoons by Josh

101 thoughts on “Hump day hilarity – Told you so!

  1. great work Josh.
    How about a visual for this one,
    “Obama may fire pollution particles into stratosphere to deflect sun’s heat in desperate bid to tackle global warming”

    • You have to believe that they have been telling this lie so loudly for so long they have convinced themselves that it is true. ergo, they are willing to adversely tamper with mother nature by jousting with their climate windmills

      • Bill
        I have this mental picture of the climate knight mounted on a wind turbine blade and jousting at the horse

    • Glenn999
      It might be rephrased as “Let’s make the power plants burn less efficiently to reproduce the cooling witnessed from 1940-1970”. If throwing up particle pollution to prevent CO2 pollution is the answer, and we have to burn coal for the foreseeable future because of the defacto moratorium on nukes, so be it. Make it efficient: get the power companies to do the dirty work!

  2. Just saw the related article on Its headline was “Earth Getting Greener – CO2, Climate Change and More To Blame”. Blame? They just have to spin it as a negative, don’t they. *sigh*

  3. We need to put a price on all that beneficial CO2 we’ve added and still are adding to the biosphere. Send the bill to the IPCC.

    • Never mind… I just had a little ‘chat’ with my IT department. It was blocked on my side

  4. Don’t worry, the alarmists will soon turn this into a Day of the Triffids story where we are going to be overcome by rampant vegitation unless we put an immediate stop to CO2 emissions.

    • Already did. There was a paper I ran accross researching AGW impacts on food production for Gaia’s Limits that claimed CO2 would green weeds more than crops and thereby cause yield losses. Was a little skimpy on any actual greenhouse tests of the notion.

      • I’ve begun to notice a correlation between CO2 and weeds. The more CO2 increases in the atmosphere, the more human weeds spring up to shout alarm and try to choke off our sources of energy and our means of production. The Greens are not happy that the planet is greening. That is more alarming to them than climate change, and they’ll double-down on their demands to reduce CO2 because of it. That’s because a greening planet can feed more people, and the last thing they want is more people polluting the planet. Have you noticed how disappointed they are that climate change hasn’t been as catastrophic as predicted? The Greens are actually hoping for disasters to wipe human parasites from off the face of Gaia:

        Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.
        — Dave Forman (founder of Earth First!)
        If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.
        — Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund
        Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?
        — Maurice Strong, U.N. environmental leader and IPCC creator

      • @ristvan, I read that article as well, some thing to do with greening of weeds in the Mogolian are where ranche land was beeing overrun by weeds that grew faster because of CO2, ( no mention about way to large herds etc.)

      • Jenn Reunion
        “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes…coming soon to a headline near you!”
        O noes! So funny it must be true!
        Eugene WR Gallun

    • Some local brambles have been giving me a lot of wounds recently where I go walking. Today I took a pair of rose-clippers with me and got medieval on their ass. It’s the only language these plants understand.

  5. Judith Curry points out the attack to skeptics in the press report:

    The beneficial aspect of CO2 fertilization in promoting plant growth has been used by contrarians, notably Lord Ridley and Mr. Rupert Murdoch, to argue against cuts in carbon emissions to mitigate climate change, similar to those agreed at the 21st Conference of Parties (COP) meeting in Paris last year under the UN Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC). “The fallacy of the contrarian argument is two‑fold. First, the many negative aspects of climate change, namely global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice, more severe tropical storms, etc. are not acknowledged. Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time,” says co‑author Dr. Philippe Ciais, Contributing Lead Author of the Carbon Chapter for the recent IPCC Assessment Report 5.

    • “Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”
      ssssuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrre. Because plants don’t you know GROW or reproduce, they just “acclimatize”–that’s adjust for those that don’t own a dictionary. What a bunch of absolute crap. Why not just say that CO2 is plant crack and be done with it? Oh they like it now, but it’s addicting and damaging in the long run.

      • +1000
        You’ve got their pulse for sure. That’s exactly what they’d come up with! No matter how good it looks, it’s bad really. Oh, and it’s “all our fault,” they’ll say that too.

      • I think the point is, this is this similar to how a Billionaire acclimatizes to having a billion dollars, private jets, exotic vacations, beautiful woman, etc. Ultimately it makes all that money meaningless to the billionaire once they have it. /sarc

      • Somebody forgot to tell greenhouse operators about “the fertilization effect diminishes over time.” /sarc. They spend a lot of money enriching the air to 1200 ppm CO2. With no effect on the workers I might add.

    • So, “contrarian” claims that this is good news is a “fallacy” because:
      1) Global warming – not bad, certainly not proven to be bad.
      2) rising sea levels – not rising at an alarming rate and not accelerating (contrary to alarmist claims).
      3) melting glaciers – this is alarming how? Does this take into account those glaciers that are growing?
      4) sea ice – this is alarming how?
      5) more severe tropical storms – provably false.
      6) etc. – ooooh, even more scary.
      Also, plants “acclimatize” and the, admittedly, beneficial effects diminish over time. So, do those of you with actual experience in hot house growing see a diminished positive effect of increased CO2 in your green houses? Or are the benefits constant over time?

    • By some obscure warmist reasoning, plants quickly adapt while animals don’t and get whiped out because of more CO2. It’s this kind of ‘reasoning’, forced upon the alarmists by the obvious benefits of CO2 for all life on Earth, that makes their story ever more ridiculous. Equally fortunately, ever more people recognize this.

    • That cite from Dr Ciais is extraordinary! It does not contain a single truth in the part attributed to him. The first part of the quote is the usual ‘we agreed to something’ in Paris canard. They only agreed to think about agreeing to do something. Further, the ‘need to cut carbon dioxide emissions enough to prevent climate change’ is nothing like the same as the Paris ‘targets’. The idea that we ‘have to start somewhere’ is great, but we should start on things like setting up an international authority to permanently fix national borders. Preventing war is a far more important task before us than reducing CO2 emissions by 3%.

    • The “fallacy of the contrarian message” is brought to you by the “Never Give CO2 A Break Foundation” whose motto is: “We can’t tell you what the optimum level of atmospheric CO2 is; but it’s a sin to publish a paper that acknowledges any benefit to increased atmospheric CO2.”
      If Dr, Philippe Ciais can’t see the irony in his statement: “First, the many negative aspects of climate change, namely global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice, more severe tropical storms, etc. are not acknowledged,” then he’s blind in one eye and can’t see out the other.

  6. As member of “The Carbonist Party” otherwise called “The Carbon Liberation Army”,
    I hereby very solemnly declare:
    Dear Planet Earth and beloved plants, and dear CO2 emitting mankind:
    Keep up the good work !

  7. No doubt some idiot with more time on his/her hands than brain cells will be telling us that plants are going to become obese due to overeating all the excess CO2 and failing to take enough exercise. Back to square one, we must cut our CO2 emissions, because it is worse than we thought!

  8. This is generating overtime or supplemental contracts for friends in the right PR firms and receptive media outlets to spin this to a non-issue or negative state of mind. There is just as much corruption in the Chicago-style U.S. government as compared to Brazil, but it’s more subtle than the Latin American model.

  9. Whether plants or phytoplankton, photosynthesis includes the chemical transaction of separating carbon from atmospheric CO2. All life depends upon that transaction. CO2, the green organic fuel of Carbon based life forms (aka all life as we know it).

  10. Could we get a side interview with the plankton to see how things are going in the other 70 percent of the globe? They might have something to say about the food chain out there.

  11. Obama called man-made atmospheric CO2, air pollution. It seems that plants enjoy being polluted and thrive as a result. The same can not be said for humans, unfortunately.

    • That’s simply wrong: We humans (like all animals) thrive on
      – FOOD, and all food-chains start with photosynthesis and the alleged “pollutant” CO2
      – OXYGENE in Form of O2, and this gas is a by-product of photosynthesis with the “bad pollutant” CO2
      – A WARM CLIMATE, (humans evolved in the tropics) which is (at least somewhat) bolstered by the “evil greenhouse gas and pollutant” CO2
      Thus, we humans are at least as dependent from this “bad, evil pollutant” CO2 as our friends from the vegetation department. If the greenies would be consistent with their believes, they should declare that “humans are just a pollution, because they are made of a devilish pollutant”, according to their inhuman eco-religion…
      But I’m rather sure, future generations will overcome this mad ideology and understand:
      Or in other words:

      • Water pollution! Ha ha ha! Perfect. The Supreme Court can define clean, pure, acidic H2O gas as a pollutant posing a threat to public health and safety requiring a law suit from a group of affected school children demanding the court order the EPA to control it for the public interest.
        It is widely agreed that H2O is a far more important GHG than CO2 so what are we doing about it, eh?

  12. This is also undermining the whole ocean acidification meme. There is simply too much invested in the climate con industrial complex and messaging madness to turn the ship now for some lowly plants and plankton.

  13. Think of it this way, after more than 20 years of this farce, it now turns out that those we sceptics have been turning the planet green, whilst Birdmincers have been causing climate change, destroying the environment (and no doubt account for quite a few patches of “browning”).
    So, it turns out we sceptics have been doing far more to help the environment and green the planet than the “greens”.
    Which makes me wonder why anyone donates any money at all to them – when they could just keep their money and the planet will green despite the left-wing eco-activists.

  14. An interesting calculation would be so see how much extra CO2 plants are removing from the atmosphere compared to the net effect of the Paris agreement in removing CO2 (or adding less CO2)…. I would not be surprised to see the plants have a net bigger delta CO2 reduction …. and best of all, they do it all for free 🙂
    The plants (and algae ) of old were kind enough to die , be buried & preserved for us to be used as fossil fuels to provide us all the glories of our modern life – the least we can do for the plants is burn the fossil fuels given to us & release the CO2 back to them for their enjoyment ;))

  15. Obama ego, The seas will stop rising and the planet will heal by stopping carbon pollution.
    Dead opposite happening.

  16. Of course, we all know what the next tranche of research is going to focus on. Having found that plants grow well with increasing CO2 – we will now begin to hear stories about this or that weed spreading “uncontrollably” as a result of CO2.
    They are so obsessed to prove rising CO2 is “bad” that they are going to find a way to turn the boost in plant growth into some kind of supposed disaster.
    Indeed, we can almost see the headlines “Triffid killer weeds about to invade …. farmland causing $billions of loss to farmers …, academics (again) claim this shows CO2 is bad”. And in the meantime, the farmers are laughing all the way to the bank as a result of their massive harvests.

    • And the Forests of Doom will march on mankind, energized by the lifting of atmospheric Carbon dioxide levels to above plant starvation level, the plants are at last free of their comatose state, at last able to revenge the axe,the saw and the tree harvesters…….
      The lunacy of those who would control us all(for our own good of course) is beyond parody.
      I mean who, besides any child taking introductory biology(General science), would have known that life flourishes to the limits of the available inputs?
      Plants need CO2.
      Therefore plants will benefit from increased CO2 levels.
      IPCC demands we lower CO2 levels.
      Seems willful ignorance of nature/ reality has a long history of ending badly for the humans involved.

    • No, they are too busy with Zika blame game right now. They will get back with you when that campaign has run its course.

  17. The interesting thing that arose with the co-evolution of plants and animals over billions of years is that each thrives on the wastes/byproducts of the other.
    Plants take up CO2 and animal wastes (solid and liquid) and provide food and oxygen for animals.

  18. A greener warmer planet capable of growing more food? Well. We can’t be having that now can we. We must be colder, thus dryer, with expanding deserts and far less rain. Water vapor? Forgeddaboutit. Greens don’t want no greening of the planet. Starving, cold humans? Way better.

  19. This site advertises itself as being a source for science, I couldn’t find one serious or knowledgeable comment on this thread to justify that assertion. Is this tongue-in-cheek parody? The PNL hypothesis shows greening is not a positive outcome as biogeochemical deficiencies will occur at faster rates leading to growth and crop yield declines. That alone should make one less sanguine despite a host of other negatives for extant’s habitat as a whole. On the bright side it is good to see another confirmation of AGW theory predictions. So I’ll take the win for science that human induced CO₂ is warming the planet.

    • Professor of what?
      You do seem to be proclaiming your own ignorance and lack of reading skills.
      Perhaps you would be so kind as to produce one measurement of an instance of manmade climate change.Please include the ratio of natural versus anthropogenic drivers.
      Even better perhaps you could explain past changes in climate and how these might correlate with mankind’s production of CO2.

      • For future reference, I do not respond to scientifically illiterate comments and personal insults. There are a plethora of contrarian websites and blogs where you can satiate such perverse jejune imbecility.

      • True.
        Hot air has to be modified to produce sound and coherent speech.
        So this Professor Lester Sea King is morose as well?
        “For future reference, I do not respond to scientifically illiterate comments and personal insults. There are a plethora of contrarian websites and blogs where you can satiate such perverse jejune imbecility.”
        About said its all.
        And quite true,there are a number of “Contrarian websites”, where indeed one can observe the salient point.
        The Alarmed Ones, cannot separate natural and anthropogenic “drivers” of climate.
        Cannot tell us what “Climate Change” is.
        Cannot define their terms and will faithfully refuse to do so.
        I too would be morose if I was so conflicted.

  20. Prof. Lester,
    This thread is about a parody. There is plenty of science on this site — and it’s honest science, not your climate alarmism.
    Next, the planet is measurably GREENING, due directly to the added CO2, which is completely harmless. You cannot identify any global harm due to the rise in beneficial CO2. All you’re doing is making assertions.
    Finally, there is no such thing as “AGW theory“. AGW is a conjecture. It may well exist, but neither you nor anyone else has ever quantified AGW with empirical, testable measurements.
    Without measurements, all you’re doing is giving your opinion. And you say this site has no serious comments. Well, this is a serious comment, pointing out that your opinion carries no weight without measurements quantifying what you’re trying to scare folks with.

    • Judging from the sparseness and lack of robustness of your science heft, I must assume that your response is parody too. Besides your first paragraph of half truths spiced with rhetoric, the rest of your jeremiad is pure emotional nonsense or weak sarcasm at best. No response is required unless it was a genuine, albeit poor attempt, at parody or sarcasm.

      • For future reference, I do not respond to scientifically illiterate comments and personal insults. There are a plethora of climate alarmist blogs where you can satiate such perverse jejune imbecility.

    • Thanks,Vlad.
      And I note that “Professor” Lester is still ‘Mr. Opinion’, with no measurements or other credible evidence to support his conjecture.
      The “dangerous man-made global warming” scare is based on opinions, asserions, and eco-religious beliefs. On the other hand, there is a mountain of empirical evidence and observations showing that the rise in both CO2 and global temperatures has been entirely beneficial, with no downside.
      The alarmist crowd got it wrong, that’s all. They just can’t admit it.

  21. Mimicry is the highest form of flattery and adulation. Thanks, but you’d be better served spending your time educating yourself to avoid further humiliation rather than perfidious imitation.

Comments are closed.