Official Climate Agenda is Always the Negative Side; Never Fair and Balanced

Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”

Sherlock Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”

Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”

Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”

A recent article titled “Two Competing Narratives on Carbon Dioxide,” asks the question “Is carbon dioxide our friend or foe?” The official answer is “foe,” because of the predetermined assumption of those using climate for their political agenda that global warming was only bad. From 1985, when the foundation meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was held in Villach, Austria, to the present is 32 years and reflects how effective they have been in selling a totally one-sided argument. I know, because I received more angry responses when I dared to suggest global warming has benefits and is far less threatening than global cooling. What they could not allow was any research that identified or even hinted at any benefit to higher levels of atmospheric CO2. Or a warmer world.

From the start, the IPCC objective was deliberately and carefully orchestrated to demonize carbon dioxide. The larger structure saw Working Group I prove that the human portion of atmospheric carbon dioxide was causing global warming – they never even considered the null hypothesis. Working Groups II and III accepted that finding without question. The positive side of many variables was ignored. This includes the fact that while humans add carbon dioxide, they also remove an estimated 50 percent of what they add, but only the gross figure was ever used. This bias pervades all the work of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) from the definition of climate change given to the IPCC to the standard environmental escape hatch of the precautionary principle identified as Principle 15 of Agenda 21.

A major vehicle to promote the validity of the IPCC was the so-called Stern Review. Commissioned by the Labour government of Gordon Brown, of which Stern was a member, it was an economic study that instead of doing a balanced cost/benefit analysis said,

“Climate change is a result of the greatest market failure the world has seen. The evidence on the seriousness of the risks from inaction or delayed action is now overwhelming. The problem of climate change involves a fundamental failure of markets: those who damage others by emitting greenhouse gases generally do not pay.

All he had to do was look at the impact of cooling produced by people like Martin Parry for the World Meteorological Organization Stern’s work was completely in line with the bias applied to alternate energies. Only benefits were considered; balanced Cost/Benefit analyses were never applied. The perspective was further distorted by massive government subsidies at so many different levels that they became almost impossible. Stern’s work was given credibility within a year of releasing the Review in 2006, just like the Nobel Prize given to the IPCC, by making him Lord Stern in 2007. A strange reward for a socialist.

Every action, study, procedure, and policy was directed to one side of the hypothesis that human CO2 was causing global warming (AGW) and it was all bad. Funding came mostly from government and was only given to research that proved the hypothesis.

Documentaries are carefully planned, scripted, and produced. Considerable thought is given to the message and the assumptions made to ensure it is effectively transmitted. The decisions determine what is included, but equally important what is omitted. The BBC publishes a very detailed list of Editorial Guidelines. In a section on “Accuracy,” they provide considerable latitude.

The requirements may even vary within a genre, so the due accuracy required of factual content may differ depending on whether it is, for example, factual entertainment, historical documentary, current affairs or news.

Accuracy is not simply a matter of getting facts right.  If an issue is controversial, relevant opinions as well as facts may need to be considered.  When necessary, all the relevant facts and information should also be weighed to get at the truth.

So, a producer can determine content and emphasis but must include sufficient evidence to support the veracity and credibility of the story. Presumably, this means any documentary will include fundamentals essential to understanding; one can expect coverage of certain pivotal information depending on the topic.

I was watching episode 9 of the BBC’s TV Life Series titled “Plants” narrated by David Attenborough. (The video has commercials, but you can skip most). I was waiting for the standard reference to global warming impact on plants. I thought it would come early in the discussion about the importance and uniqueness of photosynthesis defined as

“the process by which green plants and some other organisms use sunlight to synthesize foods from carbon dioxide and water. Photosynthesis in plants generally involves the green pigment chlorophyll and generates oxygen as a byproduct.”

There was no mention of photosynthesis – it was the first dog that did not barkin the night. Obviously, you can make a documentary about plants without mentioning photosynthesis as Attenborough has done but, frankly, I don’t understand how you can provide an overview of the history, evolution, role, and importance of plants in the Earth system without discussing it. The omission, especially in the context of other omissions in the program indicate it was a conscious decision. The question is why? The answer is it would speak to the benefits of increased CO2 levels.

The program spoke of the development of trees and their adaptation to life in some remarkable locations. It examined the various ways they sought light and water. It spent considerable time on the importance of nutrients, even having two segments on meat-eating plants, like the Venus Flytrap, which obtain them by catching and absorbing insects.

I thought they would bring up global warming at the end when they talked about the extent and importance of grasslands. They emphasized the importance of rice and wheat to human nutrition and advancing human societies, but still made no mention. Again, the dog did nothing in the night. Then I realized that not once in the entire documentary did they mention CO2 or even Oxygen. I watched it again to confirm that the dog wasn’t even there, let alone barking. The focus of the documentary was that

“Plants’ solutions to life’s challenges are as ingenious and manipulative as any animals.”

 

Surely nothing is more ingenious about plants and critical to their very existence than the presence of chlorophyll and its ability to combine sunlight and CO2 to produce nutrition. You don’t even need to include the by-product of oxygen that is essential to all animal life.

The documentary was released in 2009 when the political agenda of global warming was at a critical point. The “hockey stick” graph had been under intense scrutiny since the 2003 publication by McIntyre and McKitrick. Andrew Montford’s detailed and definitive exposé “The Hockey Stick Illusion” was due for publication in 2010. Concern about the production of policy based on deliberately corrupted science pushed somebody to leak 1000 emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), the major climate research centre at East Anglia in November of 2009. The Kyoto Protocol, the major political vehicle dependent on the corrupted science was due for final approval at the Copenhagen Conference of the Parties (COP15) in December 2009. The hiatus, the levelling of temperatures after 1998, was reaching troubling lengths for promoters of the AGW claim. Weather patterns shifted so ordinary people were becoming skeptical, and promoters decided a change of terminology was required. A 2004 leaked CRU email from the Minns/Tyndall Centre on the UEA campus said,

“In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media.”

 

To which Swedish Chief Climate Negotiator Bo Kjellen replied,

“I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming.”

Apart from cold weather and a levelling temperature curve, the alarmists faced the problem that CO2 continued to rise. Skeptics were aware that this contradicted their basic assumption that a CO2 increase caused a temperature increase. Everything the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had done since its inception was to demonize CO2. Now, as people other than skeptics began to ask questions, there was the danger that people could learn that CO2 was essential to life and that plants especially benefitted from an atmospheric increase. Research started to appear from agencies NASA that anyone who studied long-term climate change and was familiar with palynology or plant physiology knew that plants thrive on higher CO2 levels.

The researchers looked at what was driving the increase in plant growth between 1982 and 2009 and found that CO2 was the main culprit, and that up to half the world’s land is becoming greener as a result.

Dr. Sherwood Idso studied and published on CO2 enhancement for years as his important website attests. He appeared in two classic documentaries on the subject, the first The Greenhouse Conspiracy as early as 1990 and later The Great Global Warming Swindle. When Patrick Moore, former co-founder of Greenpeace and a biologist, became active in the climate debate his first major campaign was about the benefits of increased CO2. It was the theme of a presentation to the Global Warming Policy Foundation in 2015.

The BBC “Plants” documentary lists three technical advisors or staff members of The Open University, “is the UK’s largest academic institution.” Mike Dodd is identified as an ecologist, David Robinson as a zoologist and Janet Sumner as a geologist with specialization in volcanology. All three must know about CO2 and its role in plant growth, but Sumner likely knew more about its atmospheric effects because of specialized work in volcanic degassing.

The documentary ends with an addendum on the process and techniques of slow motion filming used to produce the film. This is remarkable, and the visual results are stunning and revealing, but growth at any speed is not possible without photosynthesis. Its omission in this documentary is the dog that did not bark in the night because they couldn’t allow it to bark.

Advertisements

210 thoughts on “Official Climate Agenda is Always the Negative Side; Never Fair and Balanced

  1. If one looked at all the climate change in the past 150 years, and blamed everything on CO2, the only logical wish for the next 150 years would be: “give me more of that”.

    Let’s accelerate the greening of our planet in the next 150 years.

    Let’s make nights slightly warmer in the coldest regions of our planet in the next 150 years.

    You would have to be insane, or a leftist (I repeat myself sometimes), to want to stop the greening of our planet, and also stop the nighttime warming in the coldest regions of our planet.

    The only thing I would change in the next 150 years, if I could, would be firing all the climate computer gamers, stopping the worthless calculations of the average temperature, and using the money saved to fight REAL pollution … such as the air, water and land pollution in China that people who claim to environmentalists ignore

    • You know, it would probably be more illuminating to do a principle component analysis on temperature measurements than try to settle on a weifgting for an average. Of course that kind of thing would probably expose the heat island effect or smoothing shenanigans.

      • There are no measurements for about half of the surface of our planet now — and far fewer measurements in the 1800s.

        That all gets covered up by an “average”

        … and then add a claimed +/- 0.1 degree C. margin of error that is complete nonsense

        … and then make wild guesses about the future climate when you have no idea what causes climate change.

        Merely extrapolating what has happened in the past 150 years, to the next 150 years, would also be a wild guess … but just not scary enough for the warmunists.

        So they invented the CO2 boogeyman accelerator — like feeding blood to a vampire — an invented out of thin air positive feedback from water vapor theory that no one has seen in climate proxy studies, and no one has seen in actual temperature measurements since 1850 … but it’s coming in the future, they claim, based on the following “science” that only leftists could believe: “Because we say so”..

    • You do realise that the greening of the planet goes hand in hand with rising sea levels. The only way to get rid of all that deadly polluting is to reduce emmisions from burning fossil fuels and stop using petrol burning cars. Oh no …. that’s what these lefty environmentalists want. That makes you one of them.

      • You do know that sea levels have been rising for about 200 years, while CO2 and greening have only been increasing for the last 50?

        PS: What deadly polluting?

      • Markw you are wasting your time. “deadly polluting” is a tenant of Steve’s religion. His is a faith based belief. The high church council of the IPCC has declared CO2 a pollutant and he will reject it like Catholics, once upon a time, eschewed meat on Friday.

      • More CO2 in the air should green our planet and cause nighttime warming.

        There is nighttime warming in the Arctic, but melting ice there has no effect on sea level.

        There is virtually no warming in Antarctica (except for the tiny, 2% of total continent, peninsula, caused by under seas volcanoes), which should effect sea level.

        So far it seems we are getting the advantages of CO2 (greening)
        and none of the potential disadvantages (accelerating sea level rise)

        Sea level has been rising for about 20,000 years — up over 400 feet already — and rising at a fairly steady rate for the past 100 years.

        There has been no visible acceleration due to the “global warming” since 1975.

        The rate of sea level rise is harmless.

        I see liberals are still buying mega-mansions on the sea shore — why are they not worried?

        It should be obvious that SUVs and coal power plants were not responsible for the first 400 feet of sea level rise, so why blame humans/CO2 now, when THERE IS NOTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE RATE OF SEA LEVEL RISE IN THE PAST 100 years to even suggest burning fossil fuels are a problem !

        My recent summary of an article about sea level rise is here:
        http://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2017/05/npr-gets-it-wrong-on-sea-level-rise-no.html

  2. Good review of spin on CO2. The green blob likes to do cost-benefit analyses that ignore benefits.

  3. The Stern Review was published in 2006, Gordon Brown didn’t replace Tony Blair until 2007.

    • To what purpose is your quote, Bloke dt pub?

      From above:

      “Stern’s work was given credibility within a year of releasing the Review in 2006,”

  4. by making him Lord Stern in 2007. A strange reward for a socialist.

    Half the members of the House of Lords are socialists, so not so strange.

    • They also threw a fit over Brexit — apparently centering around the loss of EU citizenship.

    • The central tenet of socialism is hypocrisy so they all decry the Lords until the point at which they are offered the chance to join it – and claim the £300 per day attendance pay which is allegedly collected by running in from the taxi, signing the book, and running back to the taxi to spend the day elsewhere. Biggest claimers of the expenses? The socialists.

  5. along the same lines…..

    DELINGPOLE: ‘Penises Cause Climate Change’; Progressives Fooled by Peer-Reviewed Hoax Study

    Gender studies is a fake academic industry populated by charlatans, deranged activists and gullible idiots.

    Now, a pair of enterprising hoaxers has proved it scientifically by persuading an academic journal to peer-review and publish their paper claiming that the penis is not really a male genital organ but a social construct.

    The paper, published by Cogent Social Sciences – “a multidisciplinary open access journal offering high quality peer review across the social sciences” – also claims that penises are responsible for causing climate change.

    http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/05/20/delingpole-penises-cause-climate-change-progressives-fooled-by-peer-reviewed-hoax-study/

  6. the predetermined assumption of those using climate for their political agenda that global warming was only bad.

    Not predetermined. Determinations are conclusions drawn, but assumptions are what you have to make to draw conclusions.

    So you can gave predetermined conclusions, but not predetermined assumptions.

  7. The “CO2” is plant food gets tiring, what with water and other nutrients usually being the limiting factor. Crop failure has _never_ been the result of CO2 insufficiency.

    • So I guess you must dismiss the latest estimate that CO2 has caused 30% increase in global greening (plant growth). Continue listening to the voice in your hat. GK

    • Except that more CO2 results in plants using water more efficiently, therefore they can grow in more arid parts of the world. So, yes, I imagine that “CO2 if plant food” does get tiresome for you and your fellow ‘believers.’

    • Com’on realskeptical, note: a) water and nutrients are abundant on most parts of the ‘water planet’, but are irrelevant without the prime ingredient to life of all forms, CO2. Moreover, with higher CO2, water demand is reduced, hence the greening, most notable in arid regions. b) you took the bait! This is exactly what the article anticipated trolls would do, attack rising CO2 as a positive thing. I’m afraid you have barked in the night! c) your choice of name is what’s known as a ‘tell’. It’s a protesteth-too-much, simple minded appelation, like Deutsche Demokratische Republic or New Democratic Party. Only those concerned that they may not be perceived to be ‘democratic’ for example, put it in their name. The “Really” is begging.

      • Never even grown a garden, RS? Plants are limited by the least available nutrient or other factor required. There is an optimum possible mix, but the factor in in short supply, like potassium, will be a limit. So too CO2.

      • Really, RS, look out your window and at the green planet images. Nutrients are everywhere, even in polar regions. WATER is everywhere in abundance except in the deserts and this is precisely where the greening is most noticeable. Without adding water or nutrients, we have plants edging into the deserts because of elevated CO2.

        You PoliSci guys don’t have experience with logical thought processes because it is not needed in doctrinaire foregone conclusions, like “free enterprise, technology and freedom of thought are the root of all evil.” Evidence and logic are indispensable to an engineer or true scientist. Your “CO2 is all bad and there are no benefits” is known by you to be untrue and this is a despicable position to take in support of a political agenda.

        Tell me directly that elevated CO2 has no beneficial effects instead of wifty poofty tangential remarks about it that display your real worrisome thoughts on the matter (I note you had no rejoinder to my other points – that in itself is a ‘tell’) . Benefits of elevated CO2 AND warming of a degree or two are the words not to be spoken. It’s the gutless unidimensional ideologues catechism #1. Shame.

      • Gary,

        “b) you took the bait! This is exactly what the article anticipated trolls would do, attack rising CO2 as a positive thing. I’m afraid you have barked in the night!”

        It is rich, to have a person here actually demonstrating the only bad all the time approach in climate alarmism . . to the extra “plant food” aspect in this instance. People can just saunter up and unload on the convenient straw man ; )

      • “ReallySkeptical May 20, 2017 at 6:22 pm

        Sorry. Water and fertile soil are the limiting factors in farming not CO2.”

        What was that about skeptical?

        You are so devoted to demonizing CO2 that you invent new limiting factors and then make false claims about your ‘new’ fake limiting factors?

        It’s a shame that you didn’t learn anything about your “chosen subject”, before you start inventing from bowel gases your “New limiting factors”.

        Only water and fertile soil are “limiting factors”?

        CO2 is an absolute requirement for green growing plants. Something about turning CO2 into carbohydrates for plant success?
        Without CO2, no green plant growth; period! Leaving mankind a step away from starvation.

        Then again. your ignorance fails to even include plants as a limiting factor; also seeds, parasites, predators, pestilence, disastrous weather, rabbits, rodentia, flocks of birds…etc. etc.

        It does appear sometimes that down under lost tots seeking internet grounds to foul, like to misname themselves as skeptical. When actually, these lost adolescents are fanatically devoted to whatever their sham religion declares…

      • I’m agreeing with what you said that I quoted, Gary . . noting how it’s better to have an actual person who “took the bait” to respond to . .

      • RS, since adequate water and soil are available pretty much everywhere, your objection is completely meaningless.

    • Really Skeptical…At the depths of the last ice age, the CO2 was 180 ppmv. At that count, a lot of vegetation is stunted and at 150 ppmv, photosynthesis starts to completely shut down and a lot of higher plant/life forms on earth would become completely extinct. And this was only about 18,000 -20,000 years BP. In geological time, that is yesterday. In fact, 47 species of Mega Fauna went extinct during that period of the most recent ice age retreat. And it wasn’t due to over hunting by early humans, because Clovis culture also nearly went extinct. Some speculate that a bolide hit the ice sheet and caused extreme melting and burning of what little vegetation there was in the middle latitudes of the northern hemisphere, although there is much missing evidence for everything, including whether Lake Aggizi catastrophically drained quickly into the Atlantic or Arctic oceans, causing a decline in the Thermohaline circulation.

      At any rate, we do know that about 12,900 YBP, the Younger Dryas Event causes a major cooling for 1000 years and CO2 was only starting to recover from those extremely low counts during the peak of the ice age. Dismissing CO2 as an important GHG required for the survival of life on earth is dangerous, because we had been at the lowest concentrations of CO2 in hundreds of million years, near life extinction levels. Increasing it a little, with very little absolute temperature increase, while enjoying the benefits of a greening world should be a celebration of success by human kind. Don’t mistake visible air pollution for what they want to now call ‘carbon pollution’. Can’t even get the name right…

      http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/38/4/383.full

      • Still, crop failure has _never_ been the result of CO2 insufficiency.

        I need to point [out] crop failure can NEVER be the result of CO2 insufficiency, simply because we have enjoyed agriculture’s benefits only since 5000 BC, a period a veeerryyyyyyyyyy long time after the minimum CO2 levels of 180 ppm. On the other hand, EVERY recent crop success (or avoided crop failure) CAN BE attributed in part to the extra CO2 released to the atmosphere by man’s recent economic successes and opportunities!

        On the other hand, the very recent INCREASE in economic hardships and starvation (for example, across the MidEast) CAN BE directly attributed to the liberal-enforced political and energy-restrictive and economically destructive energy and food policies DEMANDED by today’s “progressive” politics. (Such as burning crops for expensive fuels, for restricting fossil-fired plants across the poor world, and for destroying western economies in the name of restricting CO2 releases.)

      • And how many crop failures have their been due to a 0.8 degree temperature rise over what is the average for a given location?
        Many believe heat waves lead to crop failures, but how weather makes just about every crop grow better, provided there is sufficient water.
        And as has been amply pointed out to you and is an indisputable botanical reality…more CO2 makes plants in general, including the staple crop s and everything else, far more resistant to drought or lack of moisture.
        And the rapidly increasing yields and multitudinous bumper crops mean that, even if one area or region is having a dry period, other areas are more than able to make up for it, and make up for it far more than was the case even a few decades ago.
        When was the last major famine calamity on the Earth?
        How often does drought cause hardship in the Sahel lately, as compared to the period before the most recent few decades?
        Why is it that the amount of food grown on the planet is increasing so fast that even poor countries are beginning to have increasing numbers of obese people?
        Yes, the laughable fact is, rather than the doomsday predictions of the calamitists, what has come true is the rates of obesity are exploding all over the world.
        And this taking place while close to half of food produced is completely wasted?
        Look bud, if you were reallyskeptical, you would wonder why people who are always telling us about the next disaster around the corner are not happy at the lack of actual disasters materializing?
        You would wonder how if things are going to hell so fast, we are doing better than ever as a race, with people living healthier, happier, more prosperous lives, and enjoying those lives for ever longer lifespans too…all around the world, and even as the numbers of people keep increasing?
        But you are not really skeptical, about much of anything, as far as anything you have ever said here has demonstrated.
        Rather, you are a fine and dandy representative for the most gullible and credulous group of worrywarts ever to inhabit the Earth.
        You know the ones i mean…the ones who always hyperventilating about some looking crisis, are never right about any of their fearful predictions, but only become angry when this is shown to be the case.
        This sort of behavior is a well described mental illness.
        I leave it to you to look it up what it is called.

      • Holy smokes, you people actually think tbat additional CO2 in the atmosphere promotes the growth of plants and trees? That is a ridiculous theory and not true. Plants and trees take in as much as they need and not more. All plants need sunlight for example, some more than others, if you take a plant that prefers semi shade like mint and put it in full sun it will wither and die. Plants do not have the ability to take in more CO2 just because it is there.
        Most if not all of you need to go back to high school and re-learn your biology and chemistry courses

        [??? .mod]

      • “Holy smokes, you people actually think tbat additional CO2 in the atmosphere promotes the growth of plants and trees? That is a ridiculous theory and not true.”

        Omigosh, you’re right. Plants grow the same regardless of how much sunlight and CO2 they receive.

      • After their previous brilliant simply scintillating brain melting exposure to WUWT fans; not skeptical at all returns to drop additional truly ignorant bombs of antimatter level idiocy.

        From their position of absolute ignorance, not skeptical apparently has access to unlimited ignorance bombs.

      • “mark May 21, 2017 at 5:59 am
        Holy smokes, you people actually think tbat additional CO2 in the atmosphere promotes the growth of plants and trees? That is a ridiculous theory and not true. Plants and trees take in as much as they need and not more. All plants need sunlight for example, some more than others, if you take a plant that prefers semi shade like mint and put it in full sun it will wither and die. Plants do not have the ability to take in more CO2 just because it is there.
        Most if not all of you need to go back to high school and re-learn your biology and chemistry courses”

        ” [??? .mod]”

        Rightly questioned mod!

        “I Came I Saw I Left May 21, 2017 at 6:21 am

        “Holy smokes, you people actually think tbat {sic}additional CO2 in the atmosphere promotes the growth of plants and trees? That is a ridiculous theory and not true.”

        Omigosh, you’re right. Plants grow the same regardless of how much sunlight and CO2 they receive.”

        What is this?
        Is the not-so-secret nuthouse called sks; are they holding late sessions inventing fake science and total charlatanism?

        Causing two eager antiscience anti-CO2 naysayers to run off and compete at who posts the same nonsense claim first?

        Are you tots also posting more pictures in uniforms?

      • More co2 means a warmer planet this equals rising sea levels. That sounds like fun! Enjoy thar greening!

      • It is obvious a bunch of children have decided to troll WUWT, and chosen this thread to do it.
        Steve, do you have a real thought in your head, or just a few drive-by talking points?

      • I underestimated my audience. ATheoK (and probably some others) obviously didn’t recognize sarcasm. A /sarc tag would have taken away from the humor of my patently absurd statement that mocked mark’s ridiculous comment.

        “Omigosh, you’re right. Plants grow the same regardless of how much sunlight and CO2 they receive.”

        [The mods caution ALL writers that the “obvious” verbal and body gestures carrying tone sarcasm or humor, or understatement, or overstatement and exaggeration that appear so clear and evident when you are talking to someone are NEVER clear when writing to a worldwide group of antagonists, protagonists, and amateur-tagonists. Yes, do use a /sarcasm tag. Those with a sense of humor will appreciate your modesty, and those without a sense of humor won’t get the joke anyway. .mod]

      • That’s almost more funny that some of you guys took it seriously. Or pathetic. I’m not sure which.

      • “I Came I Saw I Left May 21, 2017 at 7:18 pm

        I underestimated my audience. ATheoK (and probably some others) obviously didn’t recognize sarcasm. A /sarc tag would have taken away from the humor of my patently absurd statement that mocked mark’s ridiculous comment.

        “Omigosh, you’re right. Plants grow the same regardless of how much sunlight and CO2 they receive.”

        Oh dear!

        Someone is sarcastic, yet no one notices!?

        Meaning that some silly twit, who believes their personal sarcasm is superior to all other humor or logic.
        Then that twit is just gobsmacked when no-one, except for a few buds of the sarcastic one thinks it is sarcasm

        The truth is, that it is hard enough to write/type clear coherent messages.
        In the vast majority of cases, all sarcasm is solely in the mind of the writer, not the audience.

        “I underestimated my audience. ATheoK”

        Only the KISS method is always the proper response when problems in communicating are encountered; “Keep it Simple Stupid!”

        In order for the mystery sarcasm twit’s “underestimation” to be valid, they first have to complicate the problem; while ignoring the KISS principle.
        Long before involving the audience, the twit ignores the twit’s complete lack of writing ability, while assuming their sarcasm is so, superior to whatever.

        To help the twit, here are some principles:
        A) WUWT’s membership and attendance is worldwide crossing multiple language barriers.
        B) Sarcasm tends to be a bastion of the immature and adolescent who tend to ignore what it takes to be openly and obviously sarcastic.
        C) Clearly, consistently communicating to people from all walks of life across cultural and linguistic boundaries is difficult.
        D) Anyone, especially said twit, who blames the audience for the twit’s utter and complete sarcasm failure has totally lost whatever messages the brilliant sarcasm writer is allegedly writing.

        E) A /sarc tag, would’ve been too obvious and obviously would hurt the twit’s sarcasm impulses where allegedly mocking sentence oddly mimics exactly, the sentence as expressed earlier.

        All you’ve managed to mock “I Came I Saw I Left, without understanding, without reading comprehension and obviously without clear purpose or honorable intent”, is yourself oh unwise twit of dubious writing capability.

      • I came, I saw, I left: you mentioned Oxygen doping, no, it has not benefit unless the athlete is able to raise their blood cell numbers to allow more O2 uptake AND the athlete is able to find some way to carry the O2 canister in their persons and still perform at their best despite being handicapped with the additional burden of luggage on them (think the various sporting governing bodies haven’t already thought of this?) Generally and practically, artifical O2 uptake is of no benefit to any person, including those with a respiratory disease unless their saturated O2 falls below 92%. Blood doping is what you may be thinking of.

      • Yes, blood doping is the right term. More O2 capacity, more endurance. That’s why many forms of it are illegal.

      • ATheoK, at least In your case it’s become perfectly clear – pathetic.

      • RS demonstrates how trolls never actually think for themselves. When presented with evidence that his central thesis is without merit, it responds by repeating the central thesis.

      • Back in the dark ages, I was taught in my writing class, that it was the responsibility of those who were doing the communicating, to ensure that there writing was intelligible.
        If nobody gets your point, it’s evidence that your piece was poorly written. It isn’t evidence that those reading your words are dolts.

    • People who make a living out of real greenhouses don’t find describing CO2 as plant food tiresome. They pump the stuff in and watch the plants grow. It’s tiresome because you just don’t want to hear it.

      • “ReallySkeptical May 21, 2017 at 6:46 am

        “70% of our planet is under water!”

        Try watering your garden with that water…”

        Such witticism!
        Such repartee!
        Such an adolescent nonsense response.

        Replete with unending echoes that comes from empty heads speaking absolute nonsense..

      • Like most trolls RS has no desire to educate, no desire to make sense.
        It’s paid to disrupt, and it’s very good at doing that.

    • The “CO2” is plant food gets tiring, what with water and other nutrients usually being the limiting factor.

      Where on Earth are you man? 70% of our planet is under water!

      Only in alarmist greenhouse SciPoop a practically waterless place like Venus is regarded a greenhouse. If that’s were you reside now, it’s in both of our interest you stay clear of Persephone or Proserpina – whatever she’s called in the place of the damned in the alarmist folklore.

      • “70% of our planet is under water!”

        Try watering your garden with that water…

      • Reallyskeptical, you should change your handle to reallywrong.
        On farm fields, water and nutrients are almost never the limiting factor in the growth rate.
        You are simply a clueless ignoramus, spouting off about subject after subject you know literally nothing about.
        You should really stop posting the made-up nonsense you invent, and pretending such BS is true.

        CO2 is the limiting factor in growth for the vast majority of crops.
        Plain and simple.
        Whatever there is the least of, from among the various things needed for a plant to grow, will be the limiting factor in growth. Sometimes it is space, sometimes it is one particular nutrient. This is rare in modern commercial agriculture…it means whoever is in charge does not know what they are doing, because testing is very cheap and easy, the nutritional requirements for growth are well known, and the loss of yield is far more money than the cost of the supplement needed to correct the deficiency.
        On unirrigated fields, there is sometimes a deficit of moisture, and this can at times be made up with timely rains before it causes significant loss of yield.
        Less CO2 means stomata must stay open longer, and open stomata causes greatly increased rate of transpiration of moisture over what is the case when the stomata are closed.
        So with higher CO2, plants simply and always transpire less than is the case with lower CO2 in the air and ground.
        This is botany 101. It is an established principle, long known, tried and true, tested and confirmed.
        Every professional grower with a greenhouse has been aware of it for many decades. Many make a regular practice of spending money to inject CO2 into their greenhouses to increase the growth rate.
        People who earn a living performing an activity know what to spend money on, and what is a waste.

        Just as climate liars know what lies to tell in order to keep in motion their fat gravy train of taxpayer supplied funding.
        Stop lying and learn some real science for once in your life, huh?

      • Menicholas, I mean seriously, all of your technical details aside, without CO2, plants cease to exist. That was the most serious point.

      • Really? Sceptical, where do you think the water for plants and other life comes from? You and ‘mark’, who believes more CO2 does not make plants grow faster and makes them more water efficient are lacking in a decent high school education. From this I surmise with 100%certainty you are young (lefty core subjects) and studied in the humanities which have long been co-opted and corrupted by the new left (all social problems arise from free enterprise and evil white guys).

      • Menicholas says: “On farm fields, water and nutrients are almost never the limiting factor in the growth rate.”

        Wow. You should try farming for a living. You would die.

      • I have been involved, and financially very successful, in commercial agriculture longer than you have been alive, son.
        Large part of my success is due to knowledge. I don’t make crap up, I find out what the facts are. You should try it sometime.

    • That’s like saying O2 isn’t animal food. If you limit “food” to just what goes into the digestive tract, then you are technically correct. But that’s a distinction without any relevance or meaning.

      Furthermore, the reason there have been no crop failures because of CO2 insufficiency is because there has always been sufficient CO2 to sustain photosynthesis. Remove CO2 and plant life would die, just like animals die from lack of O2. And CO2 increases plant performance just like O2 increases animal performance.

      • The analogy breaks down, and is not a very apt one.
        CO2 is the building block for the entire food chain, which begins at the point where plants use sunlight as the energy source, chlorophyll as the catalyst, to reduce carbon dioxide and combine it with water to form molecules of glucose. From glucose, and the energy stored with it, every other biomolecule is synthesized.
        Plants also use oxygen to metabolize some of the energy containing molecules they have created and synthesized.
        Animals to not create food in the same way plants do, so there is no analogue to the need for CO2 for a plant, except for actual food that we eat. All of which came in one way or another from the plants and hence the CO2 at the base of the food chain.
        What we call plant food is more like, but not the same as, what we call vitamins in our diet…trace materials required in relatively small amounts, that must be taken up because an organism cannot manufacture them from other substances.
        But even this is a weak analogy, except perhaps for the trace elemental requirements of plants.
        The major phytonutrients, the familiar N, P, and K, that are seen as the three numbers on every plant fertilizer sold, have no analogy in animal nutrition. Unless it was to say that a man cannot live by eating bags of sugar alone. Bread…maybe.

      • Menicholas, I mean seriously, all of your technical details aside, without CO2, plants cease to exist. That was the most serious point.

      • True enough. Of course it is true.
        But it is my belief that to counter the sometimes sophisticated disinformation campaign of the warmistas, it is necessary to be precise and detailed when refuting the nonsense.
        It is evident that many people, and not just the few trolls commenting on this thread, are almost or wholly completely uneducated and misinformed about a range of scientific issues.
        It is clear that they have about zero actual scientific knowledge…I do not mind educating anyone who may be commenting or lurking.

      • ‘I’m left’ No! CO2 is the source for ALL LIFE. Animals eat the plants and even predators eat animals who eat plants!! It is clear that the more brainy, knowledgeable climate warriors have stayed away from this thread and we’re handholding educationally handicapped kids who have only learned a bit of the ideology they are fed. I’m out!

      • “I Came I Saw I Left May 21, 2017 at 11:35 am

        “Menicholas, I mean seriously, all of your technical details aside, without CO2, plants cease to exist. That was the most serious point.”

        This is your concept of “seriously”?

        Where you freely invent facts to fit your fantasy and then pretend the facts are known, anywhere else?

        Tell us oh wise anti-science and complete idiot; what happens to people when they fail to eat sufficiently?
        No famine?
        No lack of proper nutrition caused illnesses?
        No physical failure as people’s bodies fail to achieve hard labor demands on insufficient nutrition intake?
        No gasping for sufficient air?
        etc.
        etc.

        “I Came I Saw I Left May 21, 2017 at 6:03 am

        That’s like saying O2 isn’t animal food. If you limit “food” to just what goes into the digestive tract, then you are technically correct. But that’s a distinction without any relevance or meaning.

        Furthermore, the reason there have been no crop failures because of CO2 insufficiency is because there has always been sufficient CO2 to sustain photosynthesis. Remove CO2 and plant life would die, just like animals die from lack of O2. And CO2 increases plant performance just like O2 increases animal performance.”

        From one absolute idiocy to another.
        O2 is not animal food.

        Not at any level is O2 a food.

        O2 is the oxidation element animals/fish/people/insects/plants/birds/reptiles, etc. absolutely require to “consume” the foods they do eat.

        Let’s see; completely idiotic understanding of biology and biological processes; failed middle school and skipped graduating high school.

        Employment qualifications? Not even to dig septic systems.

      • I came I saw I left is apparently a skeptic, not a warmist, but is being sarcastic and has chosen a few comments with inapt analogies.
        Oxygen to animals is not at all analogous to CO2 for plants.
        not at all.
        Plants need oxygen too…for the metabolic portion of their growth. Just like animals.
        And no…oxygen does not improve animal performance just like CO2 improves plant performance.
        Lets keep it factual.
        Just making stuff up does not cut it on this site…not even among those on the same side of the debate.

      • “I came I saw I left is apparently a skeptic, not a warmist, but is being sarcastic ”

        Uh no I wasn’t being sarcastic. You guys are being nitpickers. I sufficiently qualified my statement regarding CO2 and O2 being food (“If you limit “food” to just what goes into the digestive tract, then you are technically correct”) so that anyone who wanted to get the point, would have. Of course neither are foods.But they are required inputs, which was the whole point of the comment in response to a non-sensical comment.

        And Menicholas, are you kidding me that O2 doesn’t increase human performance? What do you think oxygen doping for athletes accomplishes? It most definitely increases performance.

      • Oxygen doping?
        I saw somewhere else on here where you conceded that you had misspoken, and meant blood doping.
        Athletic performance is limited in some particular cases to the limit of how fast oxygen can be delivered to certain tissues within the body, most notably the muscles.
        But no one does this by breathing more oxygen.
        That may not even be considered doping.
        But it would do no good…there is more than enough oxygen in the air. Its concentration in the air is not a limiting factor in athletic performance.
        What you call nitpicking is what others consider the difference between what is true and what is misinformation.
        And it is pretty funny to hear you complaining about nitpicking anyway…do you recall your first comment on the thread?
        Finally, yes, you were being sarcastic, as others have noted and you have, again, conceded.

        If people are snippy around here, it is for good reason.
        The end game of the warmistas is serious business.

        But I was sticking up for you, in case you did not notice.
        You are welcome.

      • Oxygen is not food for humans, but CO2 is indeed food for plants.
        No matter who denies or how many times it is repeated.

    • NotReallySkeptical sez:

      Crop failure has _never_ been the result of CO2 insufficiency

      Sure it has. Any time crops fail from dryness, they would have dealt w/the dryness much better w/increased CO2.

      Didn’t you know the planet was near CO2 starvation during the glacial maximums?

    • Abstract

      “…Probable effects of increasing global atmospheric CO2 concentration on crop yield, crop water use, and world climate are discussed. About 430 observations of the yields of 37 plant species grown with CO2 enrichment were extracted from the literature and analyzed. CO2 enrichment increased agricultural weight yields by an 36%. Additional analysis of 81 experiments which had controlled CO2 concentrations showed that yields will probably increase by 33% with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration…….”

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0378377483900756.

      It takes someone with a political agenda and a distorted way of thinking and looking at CO2 to make the argument that ReallySkeptical is making here. He is taking the role CO2 plays in plant biology and distorting and manipulating it with his argument about the causes of crop failure and insufficiency.

      With CO2’s contribution to our crop yield, ReallySkeptical poo poos and dismiss CO2’s role in plant biology and thus demonstrates a sickening lack of concern for the increasing number of mouths added to the world each day that require feeding. One can only hope that he fades away into the sunset someday without him/her ever having been taken seriously by anyone.

      I am left wondering what kind of impact those billions of $$$ spent chasing after the faulty CAGW theory would have had if those dollars had been spent instead on agricultural infrastructure and science (i.e. watering systems and genetic engineering) worldwide. We may never know due to the fact that there are too many people in the world like ReallySkeptical.

      • I agree CD, wholeheartedly.
        The sort of thinking he exemplifies is dangerously insane.
        He is literally wrong enough for it to border on criminal negligence were he to be a political advisor or responsible for crafting public policy in any way.
        In fact, it may be outright criminal negligence and dereliction of duty were this to be the case.

    • “That apparently wasn’t enuf to stop the crop failure of ’12 in the MidWest.” What crop failure, have relative in the business and in the midwest I did hear a thing about a “crop failure” in 12. Present they are under huge pressure because of low prices, that doing far mot damage that you alleged crop failure, low prices are because of too much production not enough.

      • There was a terrible drought in that year, widespread and long lasting.
        Prices went up by a large amount.
        Yields were far below normal for the country as a whole, but there was still plenty of corn and wheat and soybeans produced.
        “Crop failure” is not a scientific term…it is a bland and generalized term with little precise meaning.
        Whose crop?
        Completely failed, zero yield?
        Which crops?
        Where, specifically?
        Here are some charts of grain yields in the US which compare the years prior and subsequent:

        Corn was down somewhat that year, on a year over year basis, but production is increasing so fast it was still more than was ever the case even a few years prior.
        Beans took a dip that year, but wheat saw no decline, although in general less wheat is being grown on a long term year-over-year basis.

        For corn production, we see patterns like this:

        “The final estimate of corn production for the years 1950 to 1959 in the United States is given as some three billion bushels and in recent years, some nine billion bushels are produced each year. Corn growth is dominated by west north central Iowa and east central Illinois. In 2011, the national average production was 147 bushels per acre, and reported to be 20 bushels per acre more than the yield in 2002. Based on a national contest in 2011 when an average of 300 bushels per acre was achieved others are sure to follow suit which result in a yield of 300 bushels per acre by 2030 from the same extent land holdings under corn.”
        Gigantic increases in recent years over what was ever possible, both on a per acre yield basis and in terms of total production.

      • You will not find any such information in the panic-mongers handbook.
        But traders use such factual information every single day.
        Prices are near historical lows across a wide range of grain products.

      • Menicholas, it is interesting that you have used information from the USDA who belong to what you call the “panic mongers” and then say you won’t find the information in their handbook.

      • “Geoffrey Preece May 21, 2017 at 6:55 pm

        Menicholas, it is interesting that you have used information from the USDA who belong to what you call the “panic mongers” and then say you won’t find the information in their handbook.”

        An accusation and argument based on zero evidence.

        Small Portions of USDA report to the POTUS and were hijacked by the prior administration.

        A huge majority of USDA must interact frequently with their state peers and all of them must interact with farmers.
        Farmers have a bad habit of being completely pragmatic.

        The parts of USDA that collect crop yields, land under cultivation, farms involved are not the NOAA idiots who believe they can rewrite data any way they choose.
        USDA data collection involves real life data from farms, businesses, silo operators, state departments, agriculture co-ops, etc.

        Summarize:
        USDA is not “panic mongers”.
        The crop yield information is available from multiple sources, most of which are deeply concerned with vetting their data contributions.

        The clueless trollops are out in force.; each appears desperate to one-down the level of ignorance in their comments.

      • ATheoK – The USDA are on board with the global warming, climate change agenda, just read the stuff on their website. I did not accuse them of anything other than what I read on their website. I suspect their data is pretty useful and pretty accurate. The graphs that Menicholas produced are fine as far as I know, but they don’t tell you anything about climate change. I read the USDA reasoning as to why crop yields are up consistently. If I remember rightly they speak of more cropland and fertiliser use as the main factors. Isolating human induced climate change as a factor, if it is a real, would be extremely difficult, I would think.
        I’m sure you’re a better person than all that abuse directed at those who offer an opinion that differs from this echo chamber.

      • Geoffrey,
        Are you seriously disputing the notion that CO2 fertilization is a real thing, that it is happening now, all over the Earth, and that much of the increases in yield in every place crops are grown is due to higher levels of CO2…the stuff that plants combine with water in order to store solar energy and hence grow…in the air with every passing year?
        Let’s be clear…is there any of that you dispute?
        And beyond those, that marginal lands which have been quite problematic as food growing regions (specifically the Sahel region, for one) are now far less so, due to plants needing less water in a higher CO2 atmosphere? And that this has led to a dramatic and rapid drop-off in the frequency of famines caused by crop failures around the globe?
        It is a honest and direct question, asked only for reason of making it clear what one believes.

      • Just to be clear, and I had thought when I made the point using those charts that I was being clear…I posted those charts not as an endorsement of the position of anyone at the USDA (which is not a person and has no opinion…just the individuals within the group do), it was to point out something very narrow…that even with 2012 being a year with widespread and prolonged droughts in the US, crop yields remained very high by any historical standards. Total tonnage produced was among the highest in history, although a dropoff in some crop yields can be seen. But it was hardly catastrophic. Prices rose, but no one starved. I heard no mention of suspending the useless and counterproductive ethanol mandate so that food could go to hungry mouths instead of gas tanks that are happier with pure gasoline anyway.
        But to listen to the news reports from that year, and knowing nothing else, one might think that crops failed and little if any corn was produced.
        In fact gigantic amounts of corn were produced. The wheat harvested that Summer represented a bumper crop, soybeans had a slight diminution below other years before and since, but so minor it may have been attributable to decisions to grow more of other things.
        The point was in reply to exaggerated wailing about the lamentable state of agriculture, and misinformation about what is the limiting factor in plant growth and crop yields.

        And let’s also be clear about another thing…you said the USDA were panic mongers, not me.
        You said I was referring to their handbook in my reference, not me.
        Maybe try speaking for yourself.
        If you disagree about the numbers and charts quoted, say so.
        It appears to me you are engaging in misdirection and obfuscation…making no point but putting words in other people’s mouths.

      • blockquote> “Geoffrey Preece May 22, 2017 at 7:18 am

        “ATheoK”

        – The USDA are on board with the global warming, climate change agenda, just read the stuff on their website. I did not accuse them of anything other than what I read on their website. I suspect their data is pretty useful and pretty accurate. The graphs that Menicholas produced are fine as far as I know, but they don’t tell you anything about climate change. I read the USDA reasoning as to why crop yields are up consistently. If I remember rightly they speak of more cropland and fertiliser use as the main factors. Isolating human induced climate change as a factor, if it is a real, would be extremely difficult, I would think.
        I’m sure you’re a better person than all that abuse directed at those who offer an opinion that differs from this echo chamber.”

        Last first:
        “I’m sure you’re a better person than all that abuse directed at those who offer an opinion that differs from this echo chamber”
        Interesting opinions you form about people commenting here. You have been corrected several times on details, yet you claim it is abuse directed at different opinions?

        Opinion 1:
        I and several others on this and other websites have a rather long involved history with the USDA.
        My Father decided back in the early 1970s to get involved with organic foods. A prime type of deal, get into farming and put five sons into physical labor markets.

        At that time, one could attend state agriculture department outreach meetings, talk to real local experts about plants, plantings, harvests, whatnot.
        Back in those days, organic foods was a simple slideshow proposal, developed with film slides before spreadsheets became available electronically. The entire purpose for organic was to develop a niche market for upscale produce and foods that small farmers could effectively fill.
        The entire organic premise is built on selective marketing to fools with more money than brains. Still is for that matter.

        After a couple of years raising strawberries and various vegetables organically, my Father and we, his sons took a moderate organic stance.

        My opinion is that the USDA, State Department Agriculture Services, Cooperative outreach agriculture services which are usually a joint state/college/USDA arrangement where knowledge, reality and experience are shared up and down the line; is an overwhelming success story with a documented history for supporting people on the ground from small gardeners to industrial farmers

        This is an opinion that can be defended, rather easily in spite of breezilyspouting erroneous claims such as : “The USDA are on board with the global warming, climate change agenda, just read the stuff on their website”.

        Here is the USDA main web site:

        Where did they hide the global warming climate change agenda!? As it is definitely not on the main page.
        If one selects “topics” and specifically chooses “Climate Solutions”, one can reach an Obama required nonsense page. Even then, the USDA Obama required page has a surprising number of rational statements.
        What is better, wait one or two years and then see how many “climate change” specious claims remain.

        However, when one chooses a substantive choice; e.g. Crops, one enters into a detailed area of government where the words “climate”, “warming”, “Anthropogenic CO2” are rarely used.

        Again, USDA is a very interactive agency with employees working directly with people throughout our Country from farmers through harvesters, pollinators, food companies, silage storehouses.

        The USDA is not an agency set up for gang rule by a few deluded individuals who do not mind lying while fudging data.
        No one in the USDA would expect to avoid prosecution if they were caught serially changing data for activist purposes.

        The state agriculture outreach services are still in excellent service throughout many states and they provide quality detailed information on what grows best locally.

        I have yet to live in a state in our country where the local agriculture extension service is not involved and active at a personal level.

        Menicholas consistently provides information and data direct from the farm so to speak. Menicholas has the experience and education to certify the value of what he produces. Any quibbles I have with Menicholas are truly nitpicking or very very out of the ordinary.

        “ Geoffrey Preece May 22, 2017 at 7:18 am
        The graphs that Menicholas produced are fine as far as I know, but they don’t tell you anything about climate change. I read the USDA reasoning as to why crop yields are up consistently. If I remember rightly they speak of more cropland and fertiliser use as the main factors.”

        Read what you write Geoffrey!
        “fine as far as I know”; yet you take issue with comments for rather specious reasons.

        “but they don’t tell you anything about climate change”; and is anyone surprised!?
        When someone asks a farmer, average age 53, who has worked outside for thirty five plus years; they are very unlikely to hear anything “climate change”!
        https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/usv1.pdf

        The entire alleged warming since 1880, whether measured in joules, ergs or degrees is undetectable to a person, people or animals on an ongoing daily basis.
        That is reality. Nor are farmers afraid to voice it if necessary; though they’re more likely to eyeball someone with disdain than to actually respond to silly claims.

        “I read the USDA reasoning as to why crop yields are up consistently. If I remember rightly they speak of more cropland and fertiliser use as the main factors”…
        Indeed? You read it, can barely remember it, have no reference for it, except you claim it is an USDA report.

        What kind of rebuttal do you expect?
        Is Menicholas or myself supposed to seriously dig into actual historical data trying to ferret out the exact item you believe you read!?

        “all that abuse directed at those who offer an opinion that differs from this echo chamber”;
        it is one thing to be an ignoramus but educatable and a completely different thing to be an adolescent trollop purposely sowing misinformation by the shit-wagon full on honest commenters.

        By the way, a shit-wagon used to be the wagon that farm laborers shoveled animal wastes into along with their soiled bedding. In spite of a cow’s tendency to freely soil themselves and their surroundings, farms are expected to keep the stalls and milking devices clean and sterile. Which means frequent laborious cleaning.
        When the s-wagon is full, the laborer gets to tow it around the farm spreading manure and happiness; well at least when a farm spreads manure it is beneficial, unlike the adolescent trolls who just like to spread rotten stuff.
        In England, relatively recently, a farmer used a somewhat newer system that pulverizes manure and bedding into a liquid mix. Rather than spreading solid and semisolid clumps merrily across a field, the farmer can spray a fine mist accurately without waste exactly where it is needed.
        Sadly, that farmer had to waste some of his valuable material fending off offensive glitterati who thought their lack of knowledge trumps other people’s rights.

        “If I remember rightly they speak of more cropland and fertiliser use as the main factors”;
        A) This is one of the areas where Menicholas is getting frustrated somewhat. Menicholas understands what “crop yield” means. Unlike some Geoffrey commenter who conflates “total crop harvested” with “crop yield”.
        B) Neither “crop land” nor “fertilizer” is free!
        C) United States has a several programs encouraging farmers to “set aside” cropland:
        e.g. <a href=“Conservation Reserve Program” (CRP) a department under USDA.

        “ What is the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)?
        The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is a land conservation program administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA). In exchange for a yearly rental payment, farmers enrolled in the program agree to remove environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production and plant species that will improve environmental health and quality. Contracts for land enrolled in CRP are 10-15 years in length. The long-term goal of the program is to re-establish valuable land cover to help improve water quality, prevent soil erosion, and reduce loss of wildlife habitat. If you would like to watch an informational video on CRP, please click here.”

        Funding for CRP land is derived from excise taxes on hunting and fishing gear.
        Meaning, the more land within the CRP program, the less total cropland available. As more farms are sold to industrial operatives with the resulting farms run by boards, the less land is left fallow year by year.

        Taken from another direction; there are biblical references to expected duties of land owners when harvesting crops; i.e. a required amount of unharvested crop is to be left. This excess was to assist the poor in that they could then go harvest sufficient food to prevent starvation.
        By the same token, sufficient harvest was left for wildlife that prospered.

        Today’s industrial farms, sow, till and harvest by GPS routes analyzed for efficiency.
        Equipment is efficient enough that little, if any, harvest is left for animals or people.
        Fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, etc. are expensive! It is a rude shock when one goes to spray a field and finds that one is spraying $5,000 to $20,000 in chemicals.

        Some character doesn’t spit on the ground and “just pontificate” how much fertilizer is required; when in doubt they test the soil!
        Testing the soil is cheap and lets a farmer know exactly what a crop needs.

        Then to be especially irrelevant, specific crop yields are extremely dependent on general weather conditions, last killing frost dates, first killing frost dates, acreage conditions (too wet, too dry), fertilization conditions, storms at harvest times, excessive rain at harvest times, crop circle fanatics who think farmers love crop circles, etc etc.

        There are several research papers that already identify CO2 atmospheric quantities as increasingly beneficial to plants allowing them to suffer less from heat and produce more. Knowledge that Greenhouse farmers have already learned by boosting their indoor CO2 ratios to over 1,000ppm

        Why is this relevant!?
        When someone says or writes, “and fertiliser use”; they are making their news up based on zero knowledge and evidence.
        Fertilizer use is not random, accidental, extreme or whatever loose version is currently touted by extremists. Even fifty to seventy years ago, farmers with USDA assistance learned what fertilizer deficiencies caused which crop symptoms; e.g. yellowing older growth, brown spots on younger growth, twisted young growth, etc. etc. Nowadays, testing is far far better for controlling costs and fertilizer needs.

        For over twenty years, the USA EPA has been struggling to prove their assertions that ‘farmers’ are major causes of pollution.
        The last few years, EPA pollution experts have been wiggling up drainage systems trying to get as close to animal use lands, in order that they could collect manure into their samples thus elevating a farm’s pollution index. Several court cases have fallen apart when the EPA evidence is voided (illegal collection measures) and unsuccessfully reproduced by legal means.
        The EPA activists are not USDA compliant workers!
        At this point Geoffrey, I have wasted far too much time correcting the misinformation you allege to have ‘read’ somewhere.
        From this point on, should I treat you as someone willing to learn? Meaning that you actually visit the provided links and read the information?
        Some New York Time or Grauniad’s rewrite version, that they allegedly based on a USDA article is not a viable information source. Nor are the opinions of urban dwelling armchair gardeners worth much. Go help a dairy farm for a few years and I’ll be much more amenable.

        Or do I treat you as the trolls in this discussion thread have been treated? Though, the amount of fabricated erroneous information the trolls have packed into two sentences is simply stunning.

        When it comes to crops, USDA is our ‘official source’. A position USDA can keep, so long as they’re providing honest value.
        A USDA that begins corrupting data to support activist intents is a much less valuable agency. Especially when there are significant business areas; (agriculture industries, food processing industries, armies of statisticians estimating/tracking and verifying actual versus estimated crops).

        Plus, there are multiple other avenues of information regularly flooding interested mail boxes. Anyone with honest interest that is paying attention will quickly notice the fops and empty suits falsely claiming knowledge and experience:
        http://www.angusbeefbulletin.com/extra/#.WSNTJ2wkuxs
        http://www.agriculture.com/?did=150918

        I prefer to buy my beef in sections of animal, not water soaked badly processed unknown age grocery packages.

        Similar emails from other news sources cover grain crops, fruit crops, aquaculture, silage, etc etc.

      • Good stuff AtheoK,
        I enjoyed reading it all, but laughed out loud when I came to this:

        “Though, the amount of fabricated erroneous information the trolls have packed into two sentences is simply stunning.”
        Truer words have rarely been spoken…it is stunning.
        And as we both know, it takes a lot more work to refute BS than it does to make it up and spread it.
        Most of the regulars here understand that for every commenter, there may be a whole bunch of lurkers, people who read but do not comment.
        And some may be showing up for the first time.
        It is (mostly) for them that I spend my time clarifying, refuting, and explaining. I am thinking I am not the only one so motivated.
        Just letting some troll go unanswered may be the easy and the preferable way to go, but letting misinformed warmista nonsense be the last word just does not seem right, does it?

      • It seems Geoffrey Preece refuses to answer a straight question with a straight answer.

    • Really Skeptical

      You would recognize that if you wrongly invested your money and got a low return that you had an investment failure.

      Likewise if you have a greenhouse but keep the level of CO2 too low you would get a lower yield. Your expectation of what you would harvest is frustrated. You have had a crop failure.

      So too with the whole earth. Low yields at low levels of CO2 are a crop failure when compared to the yields that higher levels of CO2 would produce.

      So low levels of CO2 cause crop failure when matched against what higher levels of CO2 would yield.

      Eugene WR Gallun

      PS — The effects of droughts are mitigated by higher levels of CO2. Even poor soil produces more when CO2 levels are high.

    • Reality is so tiring.
      Regardless, the non-science crowd has kept trying to claim that more CO2 does no good because other limits are immediately hit. The problem is that the planet keeps on getting greener and greener, despite the your wishes.

    • Tell that to greenhouse owners who actually know something about CO2 enrichment, unlike you

    • CO2 makes green plants grow faster.

      We are not talking about crop failure.

      We are talking about more success with existing crops (faster/more growth).

      There are hundreds of lab experiments, possibly thousands, to prove this.

      Greenhouse owners enrich CO2 for faster growth.

      Are they all stupid and wasting their money?

      CO2 is plant food, like a fertilizer is plant food.

      We are not claiming crops will grow in a field of rocks with no water.

      We are saying that many (C3) crops used for human and animal food will grow faster with double or triple the current CO2 level …

      … AND IF DOUBLING THE CO2 did cause a one degree C. rise in the average temperature (as lab experiments suggest), there is no cost for doubling CO2 in the air.

      — Plants will grow faster, and sometimes in places previously brown (satellite data)

      — Slight warming at night in the colder areas of our planet was good news in the past 150 years, so why would more warming in the same areas be bad news in the next 150 years? .

      You wrote:
      “The “CO2” is plant food gets tiring …”

      My response:
      Dim wits like you are tiring too !

      It’s always hard to find out that runaway global warming, that you believe in and spout talking points like a lapdog, is nothing more than an imaginary left-wing boogeyman used to scare people and control them — some day you may find that out.

      Real scientists are skeptical.

      Wild guess predictions of the future climate are not science.

      Intelligent people do not automatically believe everything one political party (leftists) claims when the party benefits from those claims; Leftists want to tax corporations for their energy use “to save the earth” (get more money to spend on welfare programs) and redistribute money from rich to poor countries.

      We’ve had 30 years of wrong climate model predictions so far — based on the false claim that CO2 controls the climate — how many more decades of wrong predictions do YOU need before you become a skeptic too?

  8. I don’t have kids in school anymore – hence I don’t see the text books used in public schools – I wonder how photosynthesis is covered in 6th grade science and 10 grade biology classes these days.

  9. It’s not just climate. Take any of the left’s agenda and it’s the same story. They live by the lie and get away with it with the help of the msm and educational system in the US. If they are successful in harrassing Trump out of office we are screwed. Admittedly he is sometimes his own worst enemy due to his ego, but it is great to see what happens when someone stands up to them. Hopefully, here, they will over do it and people will wake up to what is going on. Lots of democrats with their hair on fire! That part I can’t get enough of.

  10. When I first heard about CO2 being a potentially GHG warming gas in the early 1980’s, I was a convert. It was not until 1988 when James Hansen started us down this slippery thought hole, that I was asking myself questions if it was really true, and if so, would it be a good or bad thing. Then, when I got my first computer in early 1992 (a 486 -pre web) and connected to a 14.4 kbps dial up connection the next day, I downloaded my first science article by an obscure German scientist. It was about the cosmic ray theory being enhanced causing more cloud cover during solar minimums and what caused those solar minimum’s over long time frames based upon outer planets orbital forcing on the Sun. Fascinating stuff, and to think that the Sun might have something to do with the climate, well…

    Also, the same day, I read an older newspaper article about an obscure meteorologist claiming that weather records may have been misrepresented by switching paints in weather stations from whitewash to Latex. I assume that must be our very own Anthony, who also went on to question whether the weather stations themselves were situated properly for recording truthful observations. If the scarce historical weather data we do have is corrupted, then what chance do we have of actually understanding anything. And now the horror of horrors, can we even trust the temperature data after it is manipulated and massaged, and homogenized until there is no MWP or LIA. And then extrapolated to such temperature increases by AL Gore’s movie, as to be as laughable as a hockey stick graph. Of course I am a skeptic, as any real scientist is always supposed to be.

    From that day on in the early 1990’s, I was a born again skeptic, as far as the CAGW implications were being made about a hothouse earth causing the failure of future civilization. I already knew we were probably 3/4’s the way through an interglacial based upon previous ice age cycles, and possibly another ice age was in our future, so I asked myself, is a little bit of global warming a bad thing? We know now there is a fairly small universal warming from increased CO2, so how could that be such a bad thing, since CO2 is absolutely critical to life on earth. From what I understand now, the argument by rational sides on both sides of the debate is what the feedbacks are, and whether they amplify the small warming of CO2 to create more warming. That is the pure conjecture part and we probably won’t know that fully until the observations are in in later decades. In a court of law, the mathematical hypothetical climate models would be hearsay.

    What I have seen of this debate is that it is one sided, from a doomster perspective that we are all going to fry and civilization will end as we know it unless we pay money and change our evil ways. The actual temperature trend however, is way below any of the mathematical models, and in fact, no real net warming since the 1998 super El Nino. The 2016 super El Nino has ended and what will be significant is whether we step up to a new plateau of base line temperature over the net few years, or we just hover in temps similar to the last 20 years. If there is no warming trend at all over the last 20 years, then why do we keep knocking our head against a brick wall, hoping to get a different result? The next 3-5 years will be critical with what happens to this temperature trend, since people will get real wise, real quick when they are departing with hard earned dollars for carbon taxes and Paris while temperature, weather and climate stay basically the same. At that point, the jig will be up and the CAGW premise will be dead, or at least it will put on the back burner. Hopefully.

    Here is a good Youtube video of Anthony making the case as a rationale skeptic. How he is labeled a deni@r by MSM after hearing this, just shows the bias of the MSM to all of us who dare question why the dog doesn’t bark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmIJCGQzCiU

    • Your experience mirrors my own.

      “Can we even trust the temperature record after it has been manipulated and massaged?”

      To me it is the most convincing argument against the global warming theory. I cannot trust people who just seem to have only one way of thinking including the fact that they just manipulate the data without the logical rationales for doing do.

      They are the least objective people on the planet and I am not going to give them control over the cash of the whole thing. Many an NGO has been taken in by dishonest people looking for the money.

      It is just an example but it illustrates basic human nature. People will fricken lie to you if it is beneficial to them. Climate science appears to be entirely based in that train of thought. I will not automatically believe a scientist just because they are a scientist but still exhibit this modis operandi.

      • People, some people at least, are more than will to do a whole heck of a lot worse than lying when their livelihood is at stake.
        And when the sums are in the uncountable billions of dollars, plus power, prestige, control, and just plain old getting what one’s own way…?
        It takes great character to resist even moderate amounts of temptation in this life…and many have none.
        Not a scruple, principle, or high ideal that they would not abandon, even if they had any to begin with.
        What is the least amount you ever heard of a person willing to kill for?

    • first computer in early 1992 (a 486 -pre web) and connected to a 14.4 kbps dial up connection

      Heh. I had the same setup connected to Compuserve (15″ monitor, 2MB VRAM, 8MB RAM, 540MB hard disk) before the web became more widely available. I forget if the browser was Mosaic or Netscape Navigator.

      • Yup…I think I only had 4 Mb of RAM, and a 256 Mb hard drive, with a 14″ monitor running Windows 3.1 but for the most part I was learning DOS programs. You obviously had the deluxe model, but I do recall paying $3500 for that first real MS computer and had to dial long distance 200 miles to the only ISP in the area. I later got the Netscape browser since it was just sort of getting set up, and I think it was a program called ARCHIE that I actually connected thru to download material at the beginning. The damn printer cost an extra $800. Slow as Molasses, and no video of course, but as they say, any connection is a good connection. Changed my life, such as my recounting of the first stuff I downloaded that changed my perspective on the budding global warming industry. And it still is, as evidenced by us all here still hashing out the details in the CAGW/CC debate.

      • As a board draftsman, I convinced myself I’d learn AutoCAD (that explains the computer specs) with it but mostly played Doom.

      • Let me give my experience with computers: I joined IMD, Pune in 1969 end. IMD has no computer but data was transferred on to punched cards — I was involved preparing the punch card formats. Neighbouring IITM, Pune had a IBM 1600 [small computer]. I learned to write programmes in Fotran IV language and compillation was carried out at IITM computer. Then we used to take budles of data cards and programme cards to Mumbai [TIFR used to have 3600 computer] and run the programme on TIFR computer. Even if one card has problem, we have to rerun the programme. Then in 1976 joined ICRISAT in Hyderabad. Here I changed from Fortan to C+ programming and used to run the programmes on probability estimates, water balance models, crop-weather-soil models.

        Then in Australia I did analysis from CSIRO, Canberra computer where software available on the system for Agroclimatic classification — numerical –. The rest I wrote my programmes and run the them. Then in Brazil/Petrolina we used to have computer assistance.

        When I joined Maputo/Mozambique, I brought a Olivettee personal computer for US$ 3000 from South Africa with memory 256 kb only. I wrote programmes in Fotran IV and C+ as some friends provided statistical packages.

        Here we know what we are doing and what we are getting but present day computer based studies neither they know the what they really doing and really getting as the programmes were created by somebody with several assumptions.

        Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

    • “When I first heard about CO2 being a potentially GHG warming gas in the early 1980’s, I was a convert…” NO, I was a skeptic. I didn’t believe any of it and still have an even more skeptical view now than ever before. I just used my common sense…or my BS meter went off right from the start…

      • Ditto J. P.
        I knew it was baloney from the get-go, and even if there was some truth to it, it was questionable enough to be far too soon to say with any degree of certainty at the time, back in the 1980s.
        Since then, everything I had supposed to be the case has been born out by observations and events.
        Except, i never expected vast numbers of people, including very many smart people, would be so willing to be so wrong about so much.

  11. Thanks for this article. I imagine some awkward moments at production meetings when an intern says ‘excuse me, shouldn’t we mention CO2’s role in photosynthesis’ – followed by glowering from seniors.

  12. The greening of the planet has definitely struck a deep, painful nerve in the bowels of the movement. It was noted in 2007 by NASA and then quickly tarped over by dark forces from the movement. It’s so dramatic that there is 14% more forest cover (mmm…yummy new habitat!) than previous surveys found. It is not only developing into a galloping CO2 sink, but it is an endothermic process sucking up heat and, of all things economizing on water! Harvests have doubled and less land is needed to feed the world, the population is even approaching it’s maximum (80% there.)

    What’s not to like? Well, we’ve already heard some things from PIK and the American Chemical Society that trees cause pollution and are bad for us and we shouldn’t plant them! I predicted in an earlier thread there would be an impotent avalanche of anti-tree and, ironically anti-greening papers and rhetoric to bury us. I’ve been wondering how this most disgraceful period of human history would end. How fitting that it would be an anti-green hysteria by the gr … er… brown movement. A switch in colors, yeah that ought to do it!

    • ‘The greening of the planet has definitely struck a deep, painful nerve in the bowels of the movement’…
      ‘How fitting that it would be an anti-green hysteria by the gr … er… brown movement.’

      Are you trying to say it is a Code Brown Event for the alarmists?

    • That deep and painful nerve signaling a bout of explosive incontinence is soon to be upon them?
      How unfortunate…for them.
      And anyone standing too close as well, I would imagine.
      Beware their ornery bowels.
      And beware the coming pants-load of the brown movement.

    • I suppose that if trees are bad for the climate, the best climate minds should really get to work on a plan to stop them from propagating themselves like they are doing all over my property.

      When I moved onto my five acres 27 years ago, it was nearly all pasture. Now it’s covered with at least a dozen species of native trees planted by their own promiscuity (or by birds gorging themselves on tree seeds and fruits and then carelessly discharging their waste wherever they please).

      I’m constantly having to eradicate tree seedlings from garden and landscaped areas. The surplus CO2 is causing them to grow faster than I can keep up.

      I never had so many pesky turkeys, owls, and other birds swarming the property either.
      We can scarcely step outside without being bombarded with assorted tweets, gobbles and hoots.

      And get rid of those eco-destructive squirrels that go around planting the nut trees when they can’t find the nuts they buried the year before.

      The reversal of catastrophic global warming of our planet has to take precedence over destructive ghg generating plants and wildlife. All life on Earth is at stake here!

      • I am likewise being assailed by a barrage of rapidly growing plant life, even the desirables are outgrowing their spaces and crowding their neighbors.
        And I also have more and more varied wildlife than I might have even imagined for a suburban locale near a major city.
        Dozens of different mammals, hundreds of birds (last month a wild rooster moved in and I have not been able to dislodge him, except to keep him from roosting in my garage at night…he will not leave. Mr. Loudfeathers…holy crap are those things loud!), amphibians and reptiles (including a skink which almost poisoned one of my cats to death with the neurotoxin it secretes…she remains mostly deaf although can now walk again, but nothing like her formerly agile self), and insects beyond all reckoning.
        Oak trees now grow so fast one can create a shade tree from a wild sapling in a handful of years. I have several over twenty feet tall that were five feet tall, ivy covered, and stunted, when I bought the place four years ago. And that by just clearing away competitors and pruning the lower side branches…no feeding or irrigation.

  13. Nobody in science is demonising CO2. It is simply a by product of burning fossil fuels and deforestation both of which are human made inputs. What is being demonised is the political agenda and millions of dollars spent by the fossil fuel industry to brain wash people like you. The only countries in the world where climate change denialism has a platform is (in order) the USA, Australia, Canada and the UK.
    The reasons the documentaries and literature are so ‘one sided’ is because the science only points in one direction. There is no debate about the earth rotating around the sun, it simply does. There is no debate about CO2 trapping heat, it simply does. There is no debate about the rate of melting glaciers, the growing absence of artic ice, the increase of flooding due to extreme rainfall or the increasing number and ever larger wild fires, there simply are.
    Anyone that thinks 200 countries got together just to push a solar cell money making agenda is completely idiotic. As if 200 countries haven’t got better things to do.

    • Anyone that thinks 200 countries got together just to push a solar cell money making agenda is completely idiotic. As if 200 countries haven’t got better things to do.

      Rather,
      Anyone that thinks 200 countries got together just to push a solar cell money making agenda is completely idiotic correct. All 200 countries haven’t got better things to do want 3 trillion in money from those four RICH countries ! And the international bankers want their share of the 31 trillion in carbon futures trading required by the CAGW agenda! And the UN wants the power that comes from controlling the world’s energy budgets and prices! And the Eco-catatrophists and world’s socialists want to destroy those four countries, their economies, and the cultures in them!
      Those 200 countries all want what those 4 countries have. Money. Power. Energy. Economies.
      And they want it the easy way. By taking it.

      • The bankers already own everything in site except for your fledging obamacare and whats left of education and social security. But they will get all of that soon enough.

    • As well as courses in science and math, mark, you ought to take some in logic and reasoning. Your “science only points in one direction” is indicative of an ideologue spouting dogma.

      • No, i took that line from the article and threw it back. But the science is irrefutable concerning the role of CO2 in the atmosphere, without it we would be an ice planet, too much of it and we heat up and right now we are heating up at an extraordinary rate.

      • CO2 is pretty much played out as a greenhouse gas.
        Even the IPCC admits that it’s only capable of adding a few tenths of a degree more to global temperatures.
        That’s why they have to keep inventing new and more fanciful positive feedbacks to keep the panic going.

    • Mark, you ninny:

      “Nobody in science is demonising CO2:

      Wrong. Are you a complete ignoramus, or just a liar?

      “It is simply a by product of burning fossil fuels and deforestation both of which are human made inputs.”

      Wrong, it is far more than that. Again, liar or just incredibly stupid and uninformed? Did you miss the part about global greening and forests growing all over the Earth?

      ” What is being demonised is the political agenda and millions of dollars spent by the fossil fuel industry to brain wash people like you. ”

      Complete hogwash. Wait, that is too weak. BULLSHIT! Yeah, that’s more like it.
      It seems you have tons of experience with being brainwashed, but that is not excuse for lies and stupidity.

      “The only countries in the world where climate change denialism has a platform is (in order) the USA, Australia, Canada and the UK.”

      Wow, hateful language, the failed grammar of a poorly educated 13 year old, and more lies and ignorance…all in one sentence. Bravo. With a heaping dollop of stupidity and knuckleheaded absolutism thrown in for good measure. You outdo yourself. Wow, impressive.

      “The reasons the documentaries and literature are so ‘one sided’ is because the science only points in one direction.”

      Hey, thanks for the belly laugh!
      I am still torn though…are you the biggest trolling lair to appear here in some time, or just 100% lacking in any scientific edumacation whatsoever? Still seems to be a toss up…my guess at the moment would be, you are both.

      “There is no debate about the earth rotating around the sun, it simply does. ”

      Aah, the straw man.
      Can’t do any world class trolling, nor can one be a complete jackassed ignoramus it seems, without a nod to a logical fallacy here and there.
      Hey, guess what? There is no debate about you utter foolishness either.

      “There is no debate about CO2 trapping heat, it simply does.”

      Now you have strayed out of the frying pan and into the fire.
      Considering you have appeared at a long running site of just one tiny slice of the exact debate you deny, this is just plain dumb. Come on now…step it up, son.
      Hey, have you ever heard of convection? Clouds?
      Likely not…those topics do not come up much in the places where you have had your mind filled with malarkey and idiotic talking points.

      “There is no debate about the rate of melting glaciers, the growing absence of artic ice…”

      Again, thanks for the laugh…it does a body good, but now I need to clean my monitor. Oh, well.
      I am not sure about artic ice, but there damn sure is plenty of disagreement with the conclusions of the panic mongers on the cyclic nature of Arctic ice. Plenty. Try reading a few things now and then. You may be surprised at what real information can do for your understanding of the world.

      “the increase of flooding due to extreme rainfall”

      Wrong again, Ace.
      Say, it looks like you have a shot at the record…not one single kernel of truth spoken yet.
      Let’s see if you can keep it going…

      “or the increasing number and ever larger wild fires, there simply are.”

      And it sure looks like you can keep it up. You may be looking at a spot in the Hall of Shame.
      Still wrong about every single word you have said! Dang!

      “Anyone that thinks 200 countries got together just to push a solar cell money making agenda is completely idiotic. As if 200 countries haven’t got better things to do.”

      Oh, no…there is more to it than that, but if you think that power, control, and money are beneath the dignity of the leaders of the world, let alone the other but overlapping pack of thieves and liars at the UN, I believe I might have overestimated your age…my new guess is you are about 12. In mental ability, if not calendar years.

      Save your breathe kid…you are in way over your head.
      But, if you persist, I will back up everything I said with links…just this once.
      You do the same, or maybe you should keep the opinionated worn-out talking points to yourself, eh?

      Hey…did you ask mom if it is okay to be up this late?

      • You have it all wrong! it is the fossil fuel and media elite who are brainwashing the public in their global domination retention program. And you need to check your own spelling.

      • “global domination retention program”

        Well, that right there tells everyone reading what you write the whole story…you are a youthful sprig of a human being, head filled with snowflake propaganda from who knows how many idiots.
        I could tell from what you wrote last night, but this confirms it in a way which makes it clear that it is worse than I imagined…you have lapped up the very worst of the drivel, and regurgitate it with no regard to accuracy, meaning, or context.
        Maybe you are afraid, maybe you are angry, maybe you think your thoughts are true because you feel strongly about what is in your head.
        But regarding CAGW, and science in general, you are badly misinformed and completely wrong.
        My advice…try to only write stuff down which is verifiably true.
        None of the CAGW propaganda meets that standard.
        But most importantly, learn to know the difference between something you read once, something that is your opinion, and something that has hard evidence to back it up. Learn the distinction between an hypothesis and an opinion…between a theory and a speculation…between angry ranting and an informed, nuanced discussion.
        And please…besides just the words…learn to KNOW shit from shinola!

      • Manicholas

        Con grats !!!!! In one epic line you have summed up most youths.

        “Maybe you think your thoughts are true because you feel strongly about what is in your head.”

        I once wrote a not so good poem that had a single grace saving line —

        “There is a desperation to be passionate that afflicts the young.”

        Experience is the great teacher — and once we were young.

        Eugene WR Gallun

    • The only countries in the world where climate change denialism rationalism has a platform is (in order) the USA, Australia, Canada and the UK

      And curiously, those are the very same countries that are expected to pay for all the climate alarm nonsense! What a frikken coincidence!

      • You are already paying for it. Rising insurance costs from all the recent flood and fire disasters. Over the past 10 years how many states have had to declare a state of emergency seeking federal funds? And its only getting worse.

      • fossil fuel and media elite who are brainwashing the public…

        The very same “media elite” who are 110% on-board, committed free publicists for the climate-obsessed alarmists, you mean? That “media elite”?

        This confirms beyond all doubt one of two things: 1) You, mark, are delusional and should seek professional mental help; or 2) You, mark, are a professional troll.

      • Costs for insurance rise because of the rising cost of the things which are insured…it is called inflation.
        Disasters are not increasing…they have never been lower, loss of life from them has never been lower, we have never been safer or better off.
        You have literally no idea what you are spouting off about.
        It grows tiresome to hear a child pretend that he knows shit from shinola, just because he learned a read a few years ago, and has had his head filled by nonsense from panic mongers.
        You have been lied to son. Plain and simple.
        Please…learn that.
        And use the knowledge that you have been treated in such a way, by people whom you trust, in order to make yourself a better person.

      • Fascinating how the socialist actually believes that if it weren’t for CO2, nothing would ever change.
        Is there any evidence that the floods and fires, that weren’t as bad as many instances of the same over the last few hundred years, were actually made worse by CO2. Or is that just what you have been told to think.

    • The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
      – H. L. Mencken

      The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

      – H. L. Mencken

      “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

      Upton Sinclair

      The last glacial period, popularly known as the Ice Age, was the most recent glacial period, which occurred from c. 110,000 – c. 11,700 years ago. This most recent glacial period is part of a larger pattern of glacial and interglacial periods known as the Quaternary glaciation (c. 2,588,000 years ago to present).[1] From this point of view, scientists consider this “ice age” to be merely the latest glaciation event in a much larger ice age, one that dates back over two million years and is still ongoing.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period

      It looks to me we need more warming .

      • And it seems we are getting it primarily where it is needed most…in Winter, at night, and at higher latitudes.
        “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Moderating” just does not have that fear-mongering, end-of-the-world-is-nigh, give-us-all-your-money-and-deconstruct-your-industries-or-else doomsday zing though, does it?

      • Wrong. It is the rate of global warming which has a direct relationship with additional CO2 in the atmosphere. Its not the fact that the earth has been warming since the last glacial period it is the rate at which we are warming that is unprecedented.

      • Mark said: Wrong. It is the rate of global warming which has a direct relationship with additional CO2 in the atmosphere. Its not the fact that the earth has been warming since the last glacial period it is the rate at which we are warming that is unprecedented. Wrong again on two points in this one, the earth has been cooling for the last 8000 years. There is the warming in the late 20th century was not unprecedented , that was also warming period, in the first half of the twenty century which NASA and NOAA adjusted out, since it did not fit the narrative, which you are spouting about. CO2 on track and adjust record not what was actually measured and has not track the adjust record if in the last 15 years.

      • Mark, not only is there no direct relationship between the rate of recent warming and the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, but there has never in the history of the earth been such a correlation.
        The rate of warming in the most recent twenty year period is near zero, even while 30% of all CO2 ever emitted has been added to the air. Note too, that the rate of increase in the concentration, has only increased slightly during this time.
        The Earth has indeed been cooling off for thousands of years, and the period called the little ice age was catastrophically cold, with events such as the year without a Summer…a repeat of which could be an unparalleled and almost instantaneous calamity beyond reckoning, to people who think a hot day or a few acres of wilted tomatoes is a disaster. Billions could starve if a widespread snowstorm, frost, or hard freeze struck the major growing regions during the growing season. There is no way to replant a new corn crop in July in the Midwest, a new wheat crop across Canada, the US, Europe or Asia.
        Compared to a heat wave, which can and does often and easily pass with only an increase in growth, a freeze means instant death for crop plants.
        Heat is not the thing we need to worry about…cold is.
        Our planet is perpetually frozen solid and remains at deadly temperatures all year long, over large portions of it’s surface.
        On a seasonal basis, this fatally cold zone extends across a large percentage of the habitable land surfaces.
        A person transported to the Antarctic interior, even in midsummer, would die within minutes without head to toe protection of highly specialized clothing. They would be dead in a few hours to a day or two at most without shelter, even with such clothing. And even with adequate clothing and shelter, without large amounts of preserved food, source of heat, and water, would die within a few weeks anyway.
        During Winter in the northern hemisphere, the same can be said about vast swaths of the continents.
        They are fatally cold.
        On the other hand, if you take a person to the hottest places on the earth and left them, all they would need is water to survive. Even naked, with just water a person could live until they starved to death…and just basic skills could keep a person alive for long enough to walk out of there.
        People and life in general are well suited for heat and high temps, and poorly suited for cold, and unable to survive the coldest places on earth at all.

      • This is about as hospitable a locale as I have ever seen near one of the poles…at least you would not stare to death, provided you are quick enough to catch and have sharp enough teeth to eat a penguin:

      • BTW, comments are directed as a reply to mark, not Mark Luhman. Should have made that clear.

    • Yes right Mark. You forgot New Zealand. That makes it 5 Eyes. As you maybe are aware, the reason so many countries are getting on the bandwagon is that they are going to be huge beneficiaries of the Paris Agreement, in that 11 countries of the OCED Nations are going to pony up $100 Billion a year to the 200 countries getting the welfare. No wonder they are all in such agreement. Even China, who has to do nothing before 2030 to reduce emissions, will get a slice of this pie. Which is why they are now all over CAGW like a dirty shirt. Because they also manufacture the solar cells and wind machines that will be given to these 200 other nations to install low capacity renewables. I would be all over that too and say whatever needed saying if I was going to get a lot of cash for just saying, I believe.

      Sure CO2 is raising temperatures a little. It is 1.2 C for every doubling and logarithmic after that. It will take until at least 2050 to just get to the first doubling, so I doubt this is a problem at all. In fact, it is probably that we will never even get a real doubling, because we will come up with better replacements for fossil fuels by then just based upon cost and accessibility to cheap fossil fuels. We didn’t run out of whale oil, because we discovered fossil fuels, which have given us the world we have today. Along with a little more warmth and some additional CO2 that makes things grow better. Cheer up Mark, and think about it…

      • Countries are not gearing up on solar and wind to gain some kind of political advantage over other countries or to get handouts. They are doing it because it is a win/win scenario. It is creating jobs, reducing costs and most importantly reducing pollution.

        Why would anyone build a coal plant when they can build a solar farm for less cost and zero air pollution?

      • Mark says “Countries are not gearing up on solar and wind to gain some kind of political advantage over other countries or to get handouts. They are doing it because it is a win/win scenario. It is creating jobs, reducing costs and most importantly reducing pollution.” Wrong solar and wind are a money pit, paying three time as much for something, thinking you are accomplish something as far as jobs program, going solar and wind make as much sense as moving dirt with basket rather than truck it get the job done at huge human cost but at least they are employee, pure BS it a waste of human brain power, the AGW opponent are simply wanting to move back to slavery, the real reason slavery disappeared is the human race replace chemical muscle power with chemical mechanical power, that chemical power converted to work by a mechanical device, is allow us to progress and free human to think rather that to break one’s body down over the years just trying to survive, the most sorry part of that if it was not your muscle it was that of a slave, humans quit slavery because it became obsolete, not that they had a change of heart.

      • There are more humans in slavery now than there have ever been before. Indentured service and chattle slaves are surprisingly widespread. Sexual slavery and human trafficking are widespread.

        Slavery didn’t end. It got ‘clevah’.

      • It really is fascinating how socialists are convinced that taking money from one group of people and giving it to another is a good way to boost the economy.

    • MARK, It’s a worse reason than just to sell solar panels, but I will leave the answer for homework, you poor lamb. Also, don’t you think it odd that the dissenters from тоталитаризм you name are of the English speaking world only? You can add India to the list. A tradition of freedom, innovation (80%of the Nobel Prizes, inventors of the Industrial Revolution, the electronic revolution,… ). The rest of the world has their brass nose rings in and oddly, the Champagne soci@lists of the English speaking world are trying to get the rest of us fitted.

      Of your list of non disputed science, all but one are bereft of any empirical evidence. If you have been at wuwt for even a little while you have seen what I’m telling you. CO2 does absorb certain wave lengths of of IR radiation but projections have over 30yrs proven to have been 3x too hot compared to observations. This has led to recent adjustments of temperatures upwards to try to fit the “record” to theory. CO2 is proving to not be as effective a heater as thought and there are many other factors (natural variability with bigger influence).

      The final deep worry affecting proponents of dangerous warming is that, CO2 is turning out (as skeptics have long argued) to have huge benefits- harvests have doubled, the planet is greening rapidly – they’ve just found 14% higher forest cover than previous studies showed, arid areas are greening…. And it is so far, despite 30% increase in CO2 since 1950, looking from observations that business as usual WILL NOT even result in achieving 1.5C by 2100. And the final coup de gras, we sit no warmer than the Medieval Warming Period, and well below the Holocene Optimum of 8000yrs ago.

      You’ve got to read man! Read history – the LIA, Norse settlers in Greenland who planted grain raised sheep built farms that are still under the ice of today. I hope you trust that I’m sincere in going to all this trouble. PS I am a geologist who studied paleoclimate and the string of ice ages we’ve had over the past several million years. Tim Ball, the author of this article is a climate scientist. Did you read it?

      • The planet is rapidly greening? Where? The planets ice is rapidly melting, that we can easily see.

        It is astonishing how climate change deniers have no coherent story. It is one wild theory after another. The biggest theory being all these leftest elites are conspiring to gain global domination. Absolute crock of shite.

      • mark

        It is astonishing how climate change deniers have no coherent story.
        It is one wild theory after another. The biggest theory being all these leftest elites are conspiring to gain global domination.

        One finds one gets one coherent “story” only when
        (1) there is only ONE story to be found – And the “climate change” religion has many facets, many people and groups who benefit from the mass hysteria fabricated by its adherents and bueracrats and self-funding beneficiaries.
        (2) there is only one group “Controlling” the message that is manipulating the message, that is managing the manipulation and funding the manipulation (er, funding the climate change “education” in the schools, the media, and the policies)
        (3) there is a need to manipulate and control the message. And the messengers.
        (4) there is a method to control the message and the messangers. (Again, the millions in “climate change education” available only from the “climate change bureacrats” who control the “climate change funding”.
        (5) there is an advantage in controlling the message.

        In the law, there is only need to establish guilt by method, motive, and opportunity. The “climate change conspiracy” is condemned by its own establishment of the methods of funding and its control of the access of funding and ALL information distribution; the motives of greed, power, control, destruction of certain economies and countries and industries and businesses (with the subsequent rise and enhancement of other economies and countries and businesses!); and the opportunity to do all of that by the hysteria of ” CAGW – climate change” generated BY the “control of the message.”

        If the research were not controlled, if the media and the funding were not controlled, the results of the “research” would be un-controlled – and thus feared by those who seek to control the message, would it not?

        Freedom of thought is “messy” and “un-coordinated”, isn’t it? Control of thought, of a group’s actions, and of the world’s funding of “science” does, indeed, create that “single message” you aspire to.

      • Gary Pearse, I am also a geologist with over 45 years experience. Geologists utilize Sequence Stratigraphy as a paleoclimate indicator and almost universally agree: there simply is not any useful signal of anthropogenic change detectable against the noisy, and sometimes cyclic, background of natural variation. I presume this is why Prof. Mann, utilizing “Mikes Nature Trick” created the hockey stick, ie, to show a detectable signal. The appreciation of natural variation is at the heart of why more than 30 thousand scientists signed the Oregon Petition.

      • I do not know what your source of information is concerning the greening of the planet but it is not true. Plants do not magically absorb more CO2 just because it is there.

        [???? .mod]

      • Mark says “I do not know what your source of information is concerning the greening of the planet but it is not true. Plants do not magically absorb more CO2 just because it is there.” no they don’t, they just absorb more with less work and a shorter time, so then they grow faster and use less water since they so not have to have as many stoma and do not have to leave each open for as long, with the stoma on a shorter time the plant uses less water. To keep it simple for you at your level of understanding it like you eating sugar and taking vitamin and fiber pills rather than complex carbohydrates, You will end up with the same nutrition in a much shorter time, and you will get very fat.

      • Mark the Lost:

        Truly I wonder how you filter information.

        “The planet is rapidly greening? Where? The planets ice is rapidly melting, that we can easily see.”

        The planet is greening everywhere. Greening refers to increased plant growth per annum.

        Ice: there are several ‘blocks’ of ice.

        Antarctic ice is increasing.
        Greenland ice is increasing.
        Mt Kilimanjaro ice is increasing.
        Arctic ice is not changing.
        Arctic Sea Ice is decreasing, but not because of higher air temperatures. Sea ice is melted from below by warm water. Warm water in the Arctic is not produced there. It flows in.

        CO2 is supposed to warm the air. Warm air doesn’t warm the oceans. Ergo Arctic sea ice melt is not caused by CO2.

        Antarctic sea ice has been increasing for decades. Sea ice is not produced by CO2, it is caused by colder oceans failing to warm the ice. CO2 does not cause cooling of the oceans.

        When it comes to ‘easily seeing sea ice melting’ we also can see that the alarm raised about it embodies a false narrative.

    • Melting glaciers Mark. How come they are finding whole trees appearing as some of these glaciers melt? I won’t do the thinking for you.

    • Climate change denialism has a platform in every country where actual science is practiced.

      • Not true. Students in mainland Europe are astonshed that there is any debate at all on climate change. There are way too many examples of climate change related issues everywhere. Even the far right movement in France recognises climate change as a serious issue.

      • Mark sez: “Students in mainland Europe are astonshed that there is any debate at all on climate change.”
        If so, then that is simply a measure of both the depth of the brainwashing that takes place there, plus a complete lack of understanding about science in general.
        “There are way too many examples of climate change related issues everywhere.”
        Everything and anything can be “connected” to “climate change”, even though what is usually being talked about is simply weather, and not one iota of any of it has been shown to be caused by man.
        As for the “far right movement” supposedly recognizing “climate change” as a serious issue; a) Assuming they do, so what? and b) their “recognition” of it would very likely politically motivated, and iny case, mean nothing regarding the actual truth.

      • Lets be clear…no one disputes that the climate changes…always has, always will.
        In fact, there is no “the climate”.
        The earth is composed of numerous climatic zones, all of which together can be spoken of as “the climate regime of the Earth”.
        That those regimes change over time, sometimes more gradually, sometimes more quickly, is and always has been known.
        The present day usage of the term “climate change” is a misdirection, adopted when global warming went into a long pause around the turn of the millennium.
        And what the term means in present day usage is not just that the climate changes, but that it is changing because of CO2 increasing, it is caused by man, the specific change is that the globe is warming, that global warming causes more and less rain, more and less heat, more and less cold, more and less storminess, acceleration of sea level rise, the laughably dubious notion that polar ice is critically important and it is rapidly and irreversibly disappearing, and that all of the above are an imminent and in-progress civilization ending extinction of life level event for the earth.
        And we can stop it, but only if we all listen to a bunch of hypocritical globe hopping panic mongers and deindustrialize the modern world…while letting countries like China and India do whatever they want…even if that means emitting far more CO2 that the US ever did.

        That is what that simple phrase is saying.
        Weather is not climate, the Earth is not a static place, things will always change, and humans can adapt far faster to these changes can or will occur.
        Global warming catastrophism is not science, it is religion, and it is very sad to see how many are in the thrall of such idiocy.

      • “There are way too many examples of climate change related issues everywhere.”

        What there are is a typical and not unusual number of weather related events that are falsely attributed to the bogeyman of global warming/climate change.
        And far too many gullible nincompoops who credulously buy every sky-is-falling word of it.
        Get a clue, son.
        You have been duped.

    • Anyone that thinks 200 countries got together just to push a solar cell money making agenda is completely idiotic….

      so you haven’t figured out they get paid

    • Ah yes, the standard left wing line.
      The only reason why any disagrees with me is because evil corporations are paying them to.

      • MarKW
        I just stopped here to inform you that with every comment you make here, you appear dumber and dumber.

        The coming climate change catastrophe is a wild guess of the future climate.

        And that’s sad because you have a lot to learn about climate (and the politics of scaring people to control them).

        We have been hearing that wild guess of a coming climate catastrophe for the past 30 years.

        We are told that after 4.5 billion years of natural climate change, CO2 suddenly became the climate controller in 1975, with no explanation of how that could happen, or why.

        Those of us who do not always blindly believe our government, like you do, began to wonder why:

        (1) CO2 went up from 1940 to 1975, but the average temperature went down, not up,

        (2) CO2 went up a lot from 2003 to 2015, but the average temperature had a flat trend, not an uptrend.

        (3) CO2 is supposed to melt the ice and snow around the North and South Poles, but the ice is thickening in Antarctica per satellite measurements.

        (4) CO2 is supposed to create a hot spot in the atmosphere over the tropics, peaking at about six miles up, but no such hot spot was ever found.

        (5) Laboratory experiments suggest a doubling of CO2 would increase the average temperature by +1 degree C — so if the CO2 levels increased ta 2 ppm per year, we would have a mere +1 degree rise of the average temperature in 200 years (assuming fossil fuels are still in use in 200 years, and that the laboratory experiments mirror what actually happens to Earth).

        (6) Since a +1 degree C. rise in the average temperature in the next 200 years would not scare anyone, and some scientists on government payrolls wanted more attention and funding … they “invented” an imaginary positive feedback mechanism where the effect of CO2 is tripled by water vapor

        … in spite of no evidence from climate proxy studies, or actual real-time average temperature compilations, that such a positive feedback mechanism ever existed on Earth.

        Knowing that today’s CO2 level is near the lowest ever for our planet, it’s strange that higher past CO2 levels never caused runaway warming — if it did, we would not be here to read your comments, and tell you that you that wild guesses of the future climate are not science, and you should not believe them … especially after they have been very wrong for the past 30 years.

  14. “……..The BBC publishes a very detailed list of Editorial Guidelines. In a section on “Accuracy,” they provide considerable latitude……”

    The mainstream media’s bias and ignorance of how science is supposed to work is demonstrated again and again every time they produce and print (or broadcast) a story on a “scientific” paper or study that claims one thing or another. I myself cannot recall an instance when I read or heard even one of those stories where the author interviewed one or more scientists who or skeptical or refuted the conclusions of the study being reported. Not one. And I’m not just talking about climate change here either. It never once seems to occur to these reporters that a study or paper just might be wrong.

    With his/her one-sided reporting of those papers, it is always readily apparent to me that the reporter and editor have a purpose or ulterior motive outside of science, whatever it might be. Hence, we have the MSM’s support for the climate alarmist movement. Their blind unquestioning trust in the “scientists” they listen to and report on only serves to create and foster a society who’s I.Q. is sadly going downhill.

  15. The IPCC Third Assessment Report defines “climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcing or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use”. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC], in its article 1, defines “climate change as a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time period”.

    The man-induced variations have two components. They are changes through (a) greenhouse effect: This has two components, namely (i) global warming [since 1951] through anthropogenic greenhouse gases — Carbon Dioxide from fossil fuel use, and (ii) impact of aerosols from volcanic eruptions, etc; and (b) non-greenhouse effect: This is ecological changes associated with the changes in land & water use and cover, which are defined by (i) “urban-heat-island effect” and (ii) “rural-cold-island effect”. All these are reflected as trend, wherein the non-greenhouse effect component existing for long.

    However, IPCC reports are filled with the hypothetical impacts with half-baked reports. IPCC never tried to present in a balanced way the entire definition issues of climate change. If IPCC goes in this direction, then science of climate and climate change will have some value thus IPCC will get some credibilty.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

    • If IPCC goes in this direction, then science of climate and climate change will have some value thus IPCC will get some credibilty.

      Sadly the door swings both ways – unless governmental representatives and UN secretariat regain common sense asap, the UN and science will end up with the same credibility as IPCC. United Nations was born from the ashes of the League of Nations. The next should perhaps be named the Flock of Phoenix. Or it doesn’t matter really, they will have a lifetime to find a fitting name for the version 3.0.

    • Add measurement errors, such as a majority of Earth’s surface with no data that are wild guessed by “scientists” who had previously predicted global warming … and don’t want their predictions to be wrong.

      Arbitrary revisions to NASA GISS data since the year 2000 that account for half the global surface warming now claimed (total warming claimed since 1880).

      Add to this:

      1800’s thermometers tended to read low.

      False precision (the +/- 0.1 degree C. margin of error is nonsense — more like +/- 1 degree C. for surface measurements — maybe worse in the 1800s.)

      People who compile the surface data are dishonest (see ClimateGate emails)

      Haphazard measurements of oceans ( sailors in sea lanes with buckets and thermometers ?? )

      Few measurements of the Southern Hemisphere outside Australia, especially the oceans.

      And the worst:
      Wild guess predictions of the future climate … made by people who have been wrong for the past 30 years because they do not know the true causes of climate change … so they arbitrarily chose one theory … and that theory (“CO2 is the climate controller”) is obviously wrong = lots of wrong predictions!

  16. The results obtained from evaluating the success of various climate models to predict today’s global temperatures indicates that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. The IPCC has been ignoring their own results. In their first report, the IPCC published a wide range for the possible climate sensivity of CO2. In their last report the IPCC published the exact same values. So over more than two decades of effort the IPCC has made no observations that would allow them to narrow their range of climate sensivity guestimates one iota. CO2 affecting climate has not been observed. The IPCC needs to face up to the fact that the AGW conjecture is full of holes and cannot be supported. It is a matter of science.

    Since the beginning of the 20th century it has been known that there is no radiant greenhouse effect that keeps a real greenhouse warm. It was determined experimentally that what keeps a real greenhouse warm is the fact that the glass reduces cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect that keeps a greenhouse warm. So too on Earth. It is gravity in conjunction with the heat capacity porperties of the atmopshere and the depth of the atmopshere that keeps the surface warmer than it would be without an atmosphere. This is really a convective greenhouse effect. From first principals it has been derived that the Earth’s convective greenhouse effect keeps the Earth’s surface on average 33 degrees warmer because of the atmosphere. 33 degrees C is the amount obtained from a first principals derivation and 33 degrees C is what has been observed. An additional radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed on Earth or on any planet in the solar system with a thick atmosphre. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction and since the AGW conjecture depends upon it, the AGW conjecture is hence nothing but science fiction. The IPCC fails to recognize this bit of science because to do so would jepordize their funding.

  17. Maurice Strong and Agenda 21
    http://www.green-agenda.com/agenda21.html

    Sherwood Idso wrote the book in 1989 on CO2 effect on photosynthesis before the emerging climate change meme. Of course, the entire fields of botany and plant physiology have always known the universal fact that the increasing amount of CO2 is good for the living world.
    In 1985 the graduate level atmospheric chemistry issue was Ozone, also a false scare. The idea of global warming had not reached the size of a pimple. The seed had been planted by the Gaia green pioneers, Lovelock, Sagan, etc. then began growing by the hands of the usual suspects, Karl, MacCracken, Hansen, Schneider, Jones and Wigley, etc. Even when any respectable scientist in the field of meteorology such as Lindzen, Hubert Lamb or Bill Gray would laugh at those people.
    Lovelock later learned his lesson and recanted his belief in the silly models based on the gross error started by Suess and Revelle in 1957 that CO2 in the ocean surface was saturated. Revelle stated just before he died that “The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time.” It was obvious to him that the global warmists were overstating their claims.

    When people like James Lovelock, Michael Moore and others reverse their positions on global warming you know that the scientific issue is dead, it’s only the political freak show that keeps the zombie moving.

      • Patrick Moore. Thinking of Patrick Moore the skeptic while a copy of “State of Fear” by author Michael Crichton is in the bookcase next to my elbow while typing, somehow came out conflated.

  18. Basic biology: life thrives in warm wet environments

    Global warming is expanding the tropical belt, displacing the subtropic belt and expanding the temperat zone. <- warmer and wetter

    Conclusion: that's bad

    • Basic climate alarmism: Global warming is expanding the tropical belt, displacing the subtropic belt and expanding the temperat zone.

      Conclusion: They are lying.

  19. Try the documentary where Atenbourgh talks about what would happen if the thousands of cubic miles of ice in the Himalyas melts.

    There is not 10 cubic mile of the stuff.

    • D Attenborough has single-handedly putt me off from anything with BBC label. The productions procured earlier are hang to scare fieldfares from the cherry trees.

      BBC is free to test the success of their misanthropic folklore in Afaan Oromo, Amharic, Tigrinya, Igbo, Yoruba, Pidgin, Gujarati, Marathi, Telugu, Punjabi, Korean and other pertinent languages while I’m e.g. discovering Gaelic, Maltese & American vocabulary, pronunciation and culture.

      [The mods caution you against trying to learn Canadian. Australian. Southern. And Scottish. Them’s are …. well, different. .mod]

      • I think climate alarm shows are to date unavailable in ‘Hick’, the language of catfishing shows and NASCAR. At least there is still retreat somewhere.

      • ” hang to scare fieldfares from the cherry trees”

        Heck, seems 56 years is not even enough time to understand English very well, cause I do not have a clue what this means.

  20. I like to take a position that seems to be correct then flip it backwards and see it the position still makes sense.

    Let’s say that instead of GHGs being added to the atmosphere, we were lowering GHGs. How would science look at this? Would they come out and state:

    1) Increasing ice is good
    2) global cooling is good
    3) browning of the globe is good

    Because that is the argument that is being made.

    • This is so funny I can barely stop laughing. The fact that you like to take that position and think it’s valid reasoning explains a lot.

    • Reasonable Skeptic

      Let’s say that instead of GHGs being added to the atmosphere, we were lowering GHGs. How would science look at this? Would they come out and state:

      1) Increasing ice is good
      2) global cooling is good
      3) browning of the globe is good

      Because that is the argument that is being made.

      An accurate, very appropriate observation.
      I would go one step further to clarify, perhaps conclude:
      ANY change made to enhance Mankind is “bad” .. .

      • Oops, seems I misread the original comment string the first time through.
        R.S. is stating in what the alarmist community apparently believes.
        If you think melting ice is bad, slightly milder temps are bad, more plants and trees on the planet are bad…you must believe that the opposite is good.
        IOW…they want us to go back to Little Ice Age preindustrial conditions, and want everyone to believe they have the means to do that.
        As usual, the warmistas are wrong about every single thing they believe and predict.
        Every.
        Single.
        Thing.

  21. Attenborough & BBC America are as bad as it gets. You can bet on an inference on CAGW or any other current Marxist talking point about every 10 seconds. National Geographic Channel and public stations are just as bad, and even the Comedy channel. But it’s present in pretty much all media. 1984 is now…..

  22. Let’s not be distracted, these groups care nothing about controlling the climate, they want to control people, climate is just how they bait the hook.

    • The entire notion that human beings have the slightest capacity to control the weather at a single point on the earth’s surface for even a single moment, let alone control the climate of the entire planet over long periods of time, is beyond ludicrous…it is pure fantasy. Not even science fiction. Such an idea has no basis in fact.
      We have neither the available energies, the proper acumen, or even any rudimentary technological basis for believing such.
      Present day “climate scientists” have demonstrated they do not even have a willingness to objectively analyze the variables, let alone the inputs, to form a coherent base of knowledge to understand what is happening in the present, in real time, with any degree of precision or accuracy.
      They cannot even discuss the limits of their own knowledge with any degree of candor.

  23. Is anyone aware that global warming causes [cooler] temperature? When ice melts it consumes 540 calories. When water warms 1 degree it consumes 1 calorie. Therefore melting ice reduces the temperature of the surrounding water and air😳😞

    • Actually, the amount of energy, the enthalpy of fusion, for water is closer to 80 calories per gram…79.72 to be more precise.

    • And the energy, or “heat”, is not consumed, it is stored as potential energy in the molecules.

      • This is not very precise either.
        The whole story is rather complicated, but basically, when ice melts, it requires that 80 calories of energy per gram is imparted to the ice, allowing it to transform from ice at 32 degrees to water at 32 degrees. The ice does not “cool” the surrounding molecules, but rather, their must be 80 calories of energy to transfer to the ice to melt it to begin with.
        Ice turning into water cannot cool what is around it below 32 degrees.

        This being a science site, let’s keep it sciency.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_fusion

      • “The liquid phase has a higher internal energy than the solid phase. This means energy must be supplied to a solid in order to melt it and energy is released from a liquid when it freezes, because the molecules in the liquid experience weaker intermolecular forces and so have a higher potential energy (a kind of bond-dissociation energy for intermolecular forces).”

    • And yes, to answer your question…lots of people here have much more than high school physics under their belts.

  24. I have concluded that there must exist at institutions like the BBC, CBC and CNN censors every bit as empowered as existed in the 19th Century Churches who banned books, listed acceptable memes and anointed acceptable authorities.

    It is censorship plain and simple. It is censorship unanswerable to the public and in service of an influential few.

    The public cannot be properly served by guard dogs that don’t bark and Ombudsmen that can’t bite. The same public cannot survive without food produced from CO2 or breathe air without oxygen.

  25. It seems that a pack of grade-school aged dolts has now descended upon the WUWT website.
    At the very least, it is eye-opening to see the level of knowledge of even young warmistas.
    They do not know how little they know…zero awareness…but are sure of everything.
    Troubling indeed.

  26. I have read a number of reports from the IPCC and others that talk about the benefits of global warming, but they also say the disbenefits are greater, so I am not sure what Tim Ball is missing. Increased greening is talked about in those reports.
    I don’t know why the “CO2 is good for plants therefore there is no possible problem, argument is ever used”. The argument is superfluously obvious. Of course CO2 is good/ essential for plants. The question is the increase to concentrations by human actions, not its existence.
    The idea that a documentary did not mention photosynthesis therefore wanted to continue the demonisation of CO2, strikes me as pure fiction.
    Tim Ball does not believe that the greenhouse effect is real so it is useless to talk about greenhouse gases with him.

    • IPCC “disbenefits” are illusionary, Geoffrey. They are based on exaggerated interpretations of unreliable IPCC climate model outputs, sometimes connected with economic models that purport to represent technical and economic realities out 50, 100 and even 300 years. If you think anyone can predict with accuracy the human condition beyond about 20 years, then I would have problems carrying on a rational discussion with you.

      Since there have been no increases in extreme weather in a generally warming world, IPCC CMIP5 model “projections” of the various climate metrics worsening in the future are nothing more than biased speculation. Additionally, CMIP5 models’ hindcasts miss multi-decadal variations, being tuned to the warming end of the 20th Century. Dr. Curry’s recent report on climate models adopted my suggestion that such models are not sufficient to fundamentally change our society, economy and energy systems.

      Recent studies show that many models have excessive CO2 sensitivity, and their hindcasts rely on unrealistic levels of aerosols to approximate actual measurements. That makes their “projections” run hot compared to 21st Century results. It is especially bad in that their atmospheric temperature trends run 2 to 3 times actual estimates by 3 satellite, 4 radiosonde and 3 reanalyses. I observe that the only model approximating actual results is the “hacked” Russian model that has a far lower sensitivity to CO2. Russians hack everything, you know.

      It bothers me that climate science practitioners do not seem to publicly acknowledge credible data and worthy studies that would normally call for some introspection about claimed “consensus.” The Climategate emails should caution anyone listening to claims of extreme climate change by some of the top people in climate science. It also seems that personal attacks substitute for reasoned debates in climate science.

      Minor warming and the physical impacts of such warming do not prove that CO2 is the main driver. AGW, maybe. CAGW, no proof.

      • Hi Dave Fair, thanks for those respectful comments. I am not sure how you can say the “disbenefits” are illusionary, when they are predictions. They may turn out to be wrong and therefore become illusionary. I would agree that long term predictions are problematic, even short term. I do think, however, that if increases in world temperature are significant in the next 50, 100, 300 years then the stresses on the creatures of the planet will be also be significant. Many species thrive in particular climates suited to their requirements and any migration that might occur is going to be severely hampered by the extremely fragmented natural systems that exist today.
        I would agree that we can’t see much in extreme weather events as yet, maybe never.
        I think that the lower end models have come closest to accuracy. (I think the Monckton analysis using the average of models as something meaningful is a bit silly, as if some one has said that the predictions are based on the average of models.) Any one of the models could become accurate or none.
        The “climategate” emails were examined by a number of enquiries that found very little evidence of anything terribly nefarious, maybe all the participants were in “the scam”, but I just don’t think there is much to see there.
        Proof – I would agree proof is not really there, but proof is probably impossible, only the most plausible until something else is shown to be the cause. I don’t know how many other explanations for how the climate is controlled, at least 5 that I’ve perused, but the greenhouse theory is still king, in my opinion.

      • Well, Geoffrey, since “disbenefits” was presented as an assumed thing, I think illusionary would be OK. That is, unless we want to get so pedantic it is impossible to carry on a normal conversation. Then, again, I guess “wild speculation” would be more accurate.

        I think the operative term you used related to significant future warming is “if.” We ought to throw in another “if” related to significantly harmful effects on climatic systems in the event of possible warming. Another, big, “if” is the ability of organisms to adapt to any of the other “ifs.” It is all speculative and not worthy of expensive policy non-solutions.

        Please note that the Russian climate model with the lowest sensitivity is the most accurate. In any case, IPCC climate models have been shown to be inadequate for the purposes of fundamentally changing our society, economy and energy systems. They are in no way “plausible” in the sense they would justify belief in CAGW.

        Geoffrey, I read the Climategate emails. On their face, by plain reading, they destroyed any credibility the participants could ever possibly have. Collusion to falsify scientific results, criminal conspiracy to violate laws, suppression of contrary data; need I go on? I have read that criminal charges were only avoided due to the statute of limitations having run out. No whitewashing by bureaucrats and politicians can change that.

    • Your last comment is completely false. There is a greenhouse effect. I explained it in the textbook I publishd, although I also explained it is a very poor analogy. I also think the effect is almost all a function of water in all its phases and phase changes and the CO2 effect is close to zero.

      • “A Greenhouse as Analogy For The Atmosphere Is Completely Wrong” – Tim Ball. August 12, 2013. I just read English. You do seem to contradict yourself evey few sentences so it is understandable that you would contradict yourself here.

Comments are closed.