The Many Benefits of Rising Atmospheric CO2 — An Introduction

From MasterResource

By Craig D. Idso — April 6, 2022

Dr. Craig Idso, Chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and a new principal at MasterResource, invites readers to join him in a new series of articles discussing the many ways in which rising atmospheric carbon dioxide benefits humanity and nature.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide: you can’t see, hear, smell or taste it. But it’s there—all around us—and it’s crucial for life. Composed of one carbon and two oxygen atoms, this simple molecule serves as the primary raw material out of which plants construct their tissues, which in turn provide the materials out of which animals construct theirs. Knowledge of the key life-giving and life-sustaining role played by carbon dioxide, or CO2, is so well established, in fact, that humans—and all the rest of the biosphere—are described in the most basic of terms as carbon-based lifeforms. We simply could not and would not exist without it.

Ironically, far too many demonize and falsely label this important atmospheric trace gas a pollutant. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead of being shunned like the plague, the ongoing rise in CO2 should be welcomed with open arms.

How do I know this?

During the past three decades of my professional career I have performed countless hours of research, conducted multiple experiments, published a series of professional journal articles, written several books, created videos and feature-length documentaries, and authored thousands of commentary articles exploring the effects of CO2 on the biosphere (much of that work can be found at my CO2 Science website, In all those activities I have come to know that, far from being a pollutant, this colorless, odorless, tasteless and invisible gas benefits the biosphere in a multitude of ways. And I want to share that knowledge with you!

To accomplish this objective, over the next several months I will be publishing a series of articles describing several key benefits atmospheric CO2 enrichment provides to both humanity and nature. The articles will explore topics such as the effects of CO2 on plant growth and water use efficiency, a CO2-induced greening of the planet, the monetary benefits of rising CO2 on crop yields, and much, much more. Look for the postings at a rate of about two per month.

Sadly, most of the population remains woefully unaware of the many positive impacts of CO2 on the biosphere. This is no surprise, considering the constant and steady stream of misinformation our society endures from sources dedicated to demeaning and defaming CO2. What is more, world governments, non-governmental organizations, international agencies, societal think tanks, and even respectable scientific organizations attempting to assess the potential consequences of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations have spent hundreds of millions of dollars writing and promoting large reports about it.

Yet, these endeavors have failed miserably because they have neglected to evaluate or even acknowledge the manifold real and measurable benefits of the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content.  As a result, many important and positive impacts of atmospheric CO2 enrichment remain underappreciated and largely ignored in the debate over what to do, or not do, about anthropogenic CO2 emissions. And that omission does not bode well for policy decisions.

I hope you will join me on this informative journey as we explore the many benefits of CO2 and I hope you will share what you read and learn with others. Societal change occurs as individuals become informed one by one. Together we can help make that happen!

-Dr. Craig Idso


CRAIG D. IDSO is the founder, former president, and currently chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. The Center was founded in 1998 as a non-profit public charity dedicated to discovering and disseminating scientific information pertaining to the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide enrichment on climate and the biosphere. The Center produces the online newsletter, CO2 Science, and maintains a massive online collection of editorials on and reviews of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles relating to global climate change.

Dr. Idso’s research has appeared many times in peer-reviewed journals, including Geophysical Research LettersEnvironmental and Experimental BotanyForest Ecology and ManagementJournal of ClimatePhysical GeographyAtmospheric EnvironmentTechnologyThe Quarterly Review of BiologyEnergy & Environment, and the Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science.

Dr. Idso is the author or coauthor of several books, including The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment (Vales Lake Publishing, LLC, 2011), CO2, Global Warming and Species Extinctions (Vales Lake Publishing, LLC, 2009), CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs (Vales Lake Publishing, LLC, 2009); Enhanced or Impaired? Human Health in a CO2-Enriched Warmer World (Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 2003); and The Specter of Species Extinction: Will Global Warming Decimate Earth’s Biosphere? (George C. Marshall Institute, 2003). He contributed chapters to McKittrick, R. (Ed.), Critical Topics in Global Warming (Fraser Institute, 2009) and Encyclopedia of Soil Science (Marcel Dekker, 2002). Dr. Idso has also produced several short video works and three feature-length documentariesCarbon Dioxide and the Climate Crisis: Reality or Illusion? (2008), Carbon Dioxide and the Climate Crisis: Avoiding Plant and Animal Extinctions (2008), and Carbon Dioxide and the Climate Crisis: Doing the Right Thing (2008).

In 2009, Dr. Idso became the lead author and editor for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), overseeing a team of internationally renowned scientists in the production of several major reports on climate change. Those reports include Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim ReportClimate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, and Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts. His most recent work with NIPCC is encapsulated in its 2019 report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels, where he contributed as a lead or contributing author on several chapters.

Dr. Idso received a B.S. in Geography from Arizona State University, an M.S. in Agronomy from the University of Nebraska – Lincoln, and a Ph.D. in Geography from Arizona State University, where he also studied as one of a small group of University Graduate Scholars. Prior work positions have included Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy in St. Louis, Missouri; faculty researcher in the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University; and lecturer in Meteorology at Arizona State University.

Dr. Idso’s professional associations have included membership in the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sciences, Association of American Geographers, Ecological Society of America, Geological Society of America, and The Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi. Dr. Idso has also served as an adjunct scholar for the Cato Institute and he is presently a policy advisor for the CO2 Coalition, the Heartland Institute, and the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow.

4.6 29 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Danley Wolfe
April 7, 2022 10:12 am

Demonization – bad. I need to write an article referencing my c.v.

Steve Case
April 7, 2022 10:13 am

comment image

Reply to  Steve Case
April 7, 2022 11:17 am

The CO2 impoverishment is recovering but the fresh water supply is not keeping up in a growing number of areas.

Steve Case
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
April 7, 2022 12:04 pm


The IPCC AR4 Chapter Ten, Page 750 tells us:

Mean Precipitation
For a future warmer climate …Globally averaged mean water vapour, evaporation and precipitation are projected to increase. 

Do you have a link for your assertion?

Reply to  Steve Case
April 7, 2022 4:09 pm

pollution is quite real. While CO2 is good, quite a few other chemicals can make water unhealthy, even deadly.

Reply to  AndyHce
April 7, 2022 5:54 pm

Chronic over consumption of ethyl alcohol is possibly the worst. Dose makes the poison, however, and a little ingestion of that poison is not so unpleasurable.

Reply to  Scissor
April 9, 2022 3:28 pm

That goes double for putting it in our gas tanks.

Reply to  Steve Case
April 7, 2022 6:34 pm

The depletion is showing up especially in areas where there is a lot of irrigation. Here are a couple articles: Find more with keywords ground water depletion.

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
April 7, 2022 1:21 pm

Every time there is combustion of fossil fuels two types of molecules are formed. H2O and CO2. Look at the tail pipe of a vehicle and notice the water dripping out. So freshwater is continually being made.

There are other molecules being produced but those two are life giving.

Leon Warren
Reply to  mkelly
April 7, 2022 6:31 pm

As a Policeman of 35 years service I had to investigate a number of suicides where people connect a hose pipe from the exhaust pipe to inside of their car. Switching on their engine it does not take long before the occupants die. On recovering their bodies a post mortem is then conducted by the local Government Medical Officer and as the investigating Police Officer I have to be present. It is quite noticeable that the person who has died from the effects of carbon MONOXIDE their internal organs turn a very noticeable scarlet color. Exhaust fumes from a motor car, in addition to H2.0 is CARBON MONOXIDE, not carbon dioxide.
Now in my career as a Policeman I have had to direct traffic in the city of Sydney on very heavy “peak hour” times with lots of carbon monoxide being exhausted and of course I would have to inhale it, so why did I and thousands of other Police directing traffic and pedestrians fail to die also? The answer in part is the dilution of the gases but more precisely the exhaust gases break up on cooling. Carbon separates from its oxygen molecule which forms with the normal O2 in the air to form ozone, which is relatively harmless to humans and the carbon become visible and settles around the city to make it look grimy. If it did not do this everyone who goes into the cities would be dead. Leon Warren, retired Inspector of NSW Police.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Leon Warren
April 7, 2022 7:46 pm

Two points,
Catalytic converters do make CO2. And ozone can be damaging to human lungs.

Leon Warren
Reply to  Tom in Florida
April 8, 2022 12:21 am

Tom – you missed the point. The deaths I was in charge of were examined by very experienced professional medical officers who pronounced the cause of death was carbon monoxide poisoning. Carbon dioxide was not mentioned in any of their reports.
Today in New South Wales the Department of Primary Industries who monitor environmental pollution in this state reports that the ozone levels are between 17 to 20 parts, Anything under 33 is considered very good. Incidentally the DPI does not measure caron dioxide as it is not considered a pollutant.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Leon Warren
April 7, 2022 8:11 pm

Leon, have you ever investigated a death by Nitrogen gas?

Have you ever been to Warren Pennsylvania?

Leon Warren
Reply to  John Hultquist
April 8, 2022 1:10 am

No on both accounts

Reply to  Leon Warren
April 7, 2022 8:41 pm

Carbon monoxide is formed from incomplete combustion. CO2 is the major (>99%) carbon containing product from combustion of fossil fuels .
Carbon monoxide is emitted in very low concentrations from the tailpipes of modern automobiles because of catalytic converters, which almost completely combust any remaining hydrocarbons and CO. In a sealed garage, all kinds of bad things can happen.

CO2 does not react with oxygen to make ozone. Ozone in the troposphere is formed from photocatalytic reaction of NOx and oxygen. There are also some other photo-reactions involving hydrocarbons and oxygen that can make ozone.

Further, ozone is very damaging to the lungs and one should avoid breathing it.

Leon Warren
Reply to  Scissor
April 8, 2022 1:41 am

Hi Scissor – According to texts I have read a single atom of oxygen is unstable and will form with the two atoms of oxygen found in the atmosphere to form O3 or. as it is called – ozone. There are other ways ozone could form.
Yes ozone is very damaging to the lungs, so is oxygen and that is why when a hospital or ambulance is administering oxygen to a patient you will find on the oxygen bottle that it contains up to 10% CO2. It will also combine with other substances readily, such as iron to form rust,.
As mentioned above ozone is measured by the Department of Primary Industries as a pollutant,
The NSW Department of Primary Industries and Environment publishes hourly reports on air quality on oeh,airquality@environment,

Reply to  Leon Warren
April 8, 2022 4:58 am

Yes, an O atom will combine with an O2 molecule to make ozone. It takes energy to liberate the O atom and that comes from UV light from the sun during daytime.

Normally, oxygen used in a hospital in pure oxygen. Sometimes CO2 is added in order to stimulate the breathing response by lowering blood’s pH. It really doesn’t have anything to do with preventing damage from O2.

Reply to  Scissor
April 8, 2022 5:50 am

Electric discharges (lightning) also create ozone in high enough concentrations to be smelled during thunderstorms with, of course, negligible damage to the lungs. Chemically reactive ozone is useful in reducing pollution and sanitizing areas. It can be used in swimming pools to replace chlorine (which is also, in high concentrations, rather hard on the lungs.)

Reply to  hiskorr
April 8, 2022 2:55 pm


D Boss
Reply to  Leon Warren
April 8, 2022 7:37 pm

Leon Warren is (hopefully) a well respected and honorable law enforcement officer with a long history of service to society. However he is woefully mistaken, nay even ignorant of essential facts of physics and chemistry. In addition, he appears to prefer an appeal to “authority” instead of doing some basic fact finding on how the chemistry of combustion works.

Combustion of an hydrocarbon adds oxygen to said fuel, and results in carbon dioxide and water vapor – period – when complete combustion occurs. In fact humans and all animals are internal combustion engines! We burn hydrocarbon fuel by combining it with oxygen and the result is carbon dioxide and water vapor. Like our mechanical engines, we too do not produce 100% complete combustion, and indeed we exhaust various “pollutants” in our breath in addition to the primary products of combustion, including some carbon monoxide!

In fact gas stoves, and fireplaces emit CO2 and CO as well as neither has 100% complete combustion.

In the above link, scroll down to the table, showing various sources and their fuel burn and the ppmv of their carbon monoxide emission. (ppmv stands for parts per million by volume)

Notice that small and medium sized cars burn 0.16 to 0.39 gallons per hour (3.78 liters per US gallon) of petrol or octane at idle. Also notice that a car fitted with a catalytic converter emits less than 1,000 ppmv of carbon monoxide, whilst a home fireplace emits 5,000 ppmv of carbon monoxide!

A petrol car’s engine burns a form of octane, which is C8H18. The chemistry of complete combustion is as follows:

To simplify the math involved for those not versed with simple chemistry nomenclature, the following shows the values reduced from molar to mass numbers:

Average between small and medium sized engines at idle
0.275 gallons per hour burned – which is

1040 grams of octane/hr PLUS
6347 grams of oxygen consumed per hour
which yields
3210 grams of CO2/hr PLUS
1477 grams of water vapor/hr

This represents 100% complete combustion, however no such thing exists practically. Given the table above showing catalyst equipped cars emit 1000 ppmv at idle, this means that
4687 grams x 1000 / 1000000 = 4.687 grams of carbon monoxide are emitted and the product of CO2 and H20 are reduced by this much.

So Leon’s statement “Exhaust fumes from a motor car, in addition to H2.0 is CARBON MONOXIDE, not carbon dioxide.” is completely false and not in accord with actual physics and chemistry. The vast majority (99.9%) of the exhaust product of internal combustion engines is CO2+H20, with minor additions of CO in accord with how complete the combustion is. However it is miniscule by comparison to the primary products of combustion. (CO is 0.1% of the car’s exhaust products)

Indeed an open home fireplace emits 5x more CO than does your car’s exhaust at idle. Which is why CO poisoning can occur with faulty fireplace chimneys and flues!

Yes, CO is poisonous at high enough concentrations.

667 ppmv will most likely kill or maim humans with enough exposure. EPA limits are 50 ppmv for extended workplace exposure. However also in the wiki article, it is naturally produced in the body and plays a role in normal biological processes at low concentrations!

And also in the wiki page on CO, the atmospheric breakdown of CO is detailed, and yes it does contribute to ground level ozone, but not as much as NOx – both of which have been drastically reduced since the heyday of pollution back in the 1970’s. Catalytic converters on vehicles have knocked these pollutants down 30 to 50x less than they were back in those times.

But again, ozone in low concentrations, like CO has beneficial biological benefits.

Will running your car’s engine in a closed garage kill you? You bet it will if you persist. However it is via the miniscule 0.1% of the car’s exhaust being CO, and a mere 667 ppmv concentration of CO in the garage air that kills you, and I might add an insidious way to die – you simply fall unconscious after a short time before your body shuts down and dies. (insidious because most do not recognize the onset of CO poisoning – you just get sleepy and pass out) In fact the car’s engine will die also, from using up all the oxygen in the closed garage – but sadly far after the more sensitive body has expired.

However this sad fact of people dying by accident or deliberately from CO poisoning is not evidence that all the exhaust from cars is carbon monoxide!

Reply to  D Boss
April 9, 2022 3:47 pm

Perhaps a quibble, but gasoline (or “petrol” as our friends across the pond(s) refer to it) is comprised MOSTLY of HEPTANE (a seven carbon chain) that has added to it so-called “octane boosters” which slow the burning of the fuel, so as to inhibit engine knock and/or detonation which can be highly destructive to internal combustion engines.

D Boss
Reply to  Kpar
April 10, 2022 4:10 am

Valid quibble, however even that is incorrect.
The combination of iso-octane and heptane is 30-50%. Then there is 20-30% each of cyclopentane and ethyl benzene.

And the “octane rating” of normal regular gasoline is 87, which corresponds to a mixture of 87% octane and 13% heptane….

However in the example I used the average number of C and H atoms for octane is about mid range for the 500 or so hydrocarbon molecules comprising gasoline, and it’s molecular weight suffice to show the combustion product relationships.

And I use petrol instead of the vernacular “gas” so as not to confuse short form gasoline with an actual gas or methane or propane, etc.

Reply to  mkelly
April 7, 2022 7:07 pm

Only about 1.5% of WV produced by human activity is from burning fossil fuels. Section 6 of

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
April 7, 2022 1:53 pm

Plenty of rainwater down here on Australian east coast !

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
April 7, 2022 2:36 pm

That is an engineering and a political issue. Could be overcome in most instances if the political will were there.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
April 7, 2022 2:46 pm

When we start using Hydrogen as a fuel to replace Natural gas condensing the resulting water vapour will produce a supply of water.

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
April 7, 2022 4:07 pm

The same amount of water vapor is produced just burning the methane that is the major feedstock for producing hydrogen in bulk. You get more energy per unit of carbon dioxide produced just using methane as the fuel, compared to hydrogen obtained chemically from the methane, or from water electrolyzed using wind or solar generated electricity. Hydrogen is a poor choice for energy storage.

Reply to  Wayne Raymond
April 9, 2022 3:54 pm

So true. H2 is a viable option only in certain circumstances, where maximum energy is required with minimum weight, like the second stage of the Saturn V rocket.

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
April 11, 2022 1:21 pm

WHY does this remark elicit negative feedback? It’s a true statement. I guess it goes against the grain of those who think that hydrogen is ‘dangerous’? The ONLY thing that escapes from the tailpipe of a hydrogen burning internal combustion engine (or, maybe even a fuel cell) is pure water, H2O. Popular, or not, it’s STILL true!

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
April 7, 2022 4:26 pm

In Sydney, we just had a year’s rain (1200 mm), in 4 months thanks to La Nina…..No shortage at present.

Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
April 7, 2022 7:09 pm

For raising crops, getting at least a half inch of rain every week during growing season is important. Getting too much at one time is bad. Going a couple weeks without any is bad.

Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
April 8, 2022 7:47 am

Yeah, but your headlines in a year will be about “your worst drought evah”

Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 9, 2022 3:56 pm

Just like here in the US, reporting on the La Nina caused drought.

But historical data, including tree rings, show that this “drought” is a piker…

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
April 8, 2022 8:48 am

With nuclear power we could produce as much fresh water as required, from seawater. Desalinization plants powered by plentiful, clean, nuclear power would solve that problem. Small Modular Reactors could resolve this.

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
April 9, 2022 5:38 am

We literally live on a water planet, though we’ve given it an ironic name.

Reply to  Matthew Schilling
April 9, 2022 3:57 pm

We live on a “salt-water” planet.

There, I fixed it.

Matthew Sykes
Reply to  Steve Case
April 8, 2022 12:34 am


Reply to  Matthew Sykes
April 8, 2022 10:49 am

I intend to liberate the sequestered CO2 from 2 or 3 pints of beer this afternoon.

Reply to  Randall_G
April 9, 2022 3:59 pm

Workin’ on tequila in lemonade as we speak.

Uncle Kirk’s Lemonade. You should try it.

Use gold tequila, the “silver” doesn’t taste right.

Last edited 7 months ago by Kpar
Nicholas McGinley
April 7, 2022 10:25 am

The Earth needed more CO2, and so it invented people and waited until we learned to dig up and burn all the stuff that accidently got buried in rocks over the past few hundred million years.
The more of it we liberate, the better the planet treats us.

Last edited 7 months ago by Nicholas McGinley
Bill Everett
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 7, 2022 10:49 am

Mapping, based upon OCO-2 satellite data, show increased levels of CO2 where broadleaf vegetation is heaviest (particularly jungles and forests). This should not occur if these areas are primarily sinks that absorb CO2. It raises the possibility (if not the probability) that broadleaf vegetation emits more CO2 than it absorbs. If estimates of the human contribution of CO2 range only as high as five percent of the CO2 level, then there has to be another source or sources for ninety-five percent of the CO2. Trees, with a root system in the Earth and leaves that interact with the atmosphere would seem to be a natural pathway for carbon and oxygen to interact.

Reply to  Bill Everett
April 7, 2022 11:12 am

Where lots of leaves grow, they die, they rot…thus OCO shows that the natural CO2 cycle is much larger than human emissions… expected.

Reply to  Bill Everett
April 7, 2022 11:35 am

It raises the possibility (if not the probability) that broadleaf vegetation emits more CO2 than it absorbs.
I have seen this claim made here at WUWT numerous times, particularly in reference to the OCO-2 maps.
How on Earth is it even possible for a plant to emit more CO2 than it takes in? Where does the extra CO2 come from? That little bit of a claim defies the law of Mass Balance. Nobody has explained it, even throwing insults my way here for asking.
Actually, it is a fair question.
One could possibly answer like this:
It is not really the plant that emits the extra, it is the forest soils there. So where does the forest soil get its carbon from??? Well, the plants. Obviously.
So plants are net sinks, dropping what they do not release onto the forest floor, which then emit to some extent. Can the forest floor emit more carbon that it receives from the plants. Again no. If a forest floor were to emit more carbon than it got from the plants, eventually the soils would be completely depleted in carbon, and the soil would consist of just clay, sand and gravel. Because that is what a soil is after you remove all of the organic component, leaving just the mineral component.
But we know for a fact that this process never happens naturally, and has never been observed in the wild. What we do know is that long term, that soils are enhanced, acquiring an ever increasing stock of organics from the plants growing in them.

Plants are net absorbers in the CO2 they take in.
Forest, woodland and prairie soils are net absorbers in the organics they get.
OCO-2 needs to map out forest emissions for a full year to get a true picture of CO2 balance. Seasonal variations in CO2 uptake and emission are known to be huge, especially in the temperate zones. To pretend that these variations do not exist is borderline delusional.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  TonyL
April 7, 2022 12:58 pm

Yes they have. Me. I have. Dozens of times.

Don Perry
Reply to  TonyL
April 7, 2022 4:03 pm

Likewise, the carbohydrates produced by plants could not exist and there would be nothing for herbivores to eat and, thus, nothing for us to eat, neither plant material nor animal material (i.e. no veggies, no meat).

Reply to  TonyL
April 7, 2022 4:11 pm

Plants use CO2 from the air when the sun shines. Plants emit CO2 into the air when it is dark.

Rich Davis
Reply to  AndyHce
April 7, 2022 5:15 pm

But obviously not in equal amounts. Do I really need to point that out? How does a plant grow? Where does the carbon come from to make all the cellulose and other compounds in the stems and leaves?

If it’s not obvious that plant respiration has to be substantially less than the amount of CO2 sequestered, I just can’t even. 🙂

Reply to  TonyL
April 8, 2022 2:17 am

Tropical forest has surprisingly little humic soil. Most of the carbon in the ecosystem at any time is in living plant (and animal) tissue. That’s why those rainforests are fragile – cut them down and you risk ending up with desert.

Temperate forest by contrast has deep humic soil holding a much larger percentage of the carbon in the forest ecosystem.

Reply to  TonyL
April 8, 2022 7:23 am

Yes, thankyou. Everything has to come from somewhere.

But I would say that soils eroding away—in dessert regions—do lose their carbon to the atmosphere. Throughout the American Southwest, we see scattered coal fields eroding away, with the hydrocarbons evaporating in the heat and light.

Reply to  Lil-Mike
April 9, 2022 4:03 pm

Better to burn them, at least we get something useful out of that.

Bill Everett
Reply to  TonyL
April 8, 2022 1:04 pm

I don’t see how your comments explain the higher level of CO2 where vegetaton levels are higher.

Reply to  Bill Everett
April 7, 2022 1:24 pm

Then we have more CO2…even better

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Bill Everett
April 7, 2022 1:45 pm

Absolutely so, and NASA showed that in the original images they published.

But that didn’t fit the narrative so they came up with the C0ck and Bull story that the OCO Sputnik couldn’t see through the clouds that always hung over the forests, or especially when the sun was up and the Sputnik could actually ‘see’ something

Hence the images we see now do not have any visible data for the big forests

It’s called ‘Lying By Omission’ and NASA are now very accomplished at doing it

Did no-one, not a single one of us, wonder how the Global Greening Sputnik could see the ground as the very prerequisite for its mission, while OCO2 couldn’t?
Especially when OCO is looking for a ‘well mixed gas’ and the white tops of clouds should have been perfect for how it did its measurements?

So what changed for OCO Sputnik ‘tween 2015 and now?
(haha Did The Climate Change?)

Here’s what. some of what, OCO originally saw…
There’s the green rainforests and lots of CO2 above them.

Clue: What caused that is what makes up, apparently, 99% of all the cells that go to comprise me, you and everyone

Bill Everett
Reply to  Peta of Newark
April 8, 2022 1:15 pm

Another example of NASA inaccuracy is their paper entitled “Satellite Detects Human Contribution to Atmospheric CO2” which is a description of a Finnish study using OCO-2 data to map the human CO2 contribution in various countries. The map of the US clearly shows a correlation of CO2 presence with areas of increased vegetation not human activity. The same is true for China.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 7, 2022 1:32 pm

trouble is and will be, after a century or so the fossils will be running into short supply.

Most of the original CO2 that Earth inherited from its interstellar/Intergalactic gas cloud, ~5 billion ya, is now bound up in limestones and chalk.

That is why we need to get some pretty epic nukes up and running – to cook that shyte and get/keep some real and sustainable amounts of CO2 in the sky

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Peta of Newark
April 8, 2022 5:30 am

I think we have thousands of years of fossil fuels.
Some of the largest resources are not even used at all yet.
Others are barely used.
But we should be using as much hydro and nuclear power as possible to conserve fossil fuels and keep prices of all forms of energy low.

joe X
April 7, 2022 10:29 am

bring it on Dr. Idso. shout it from the mountain tops.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  joe X
April 7, 2022 1:28 pm

and from inside the greenhouse – don’t forget the greenhose where those lovely Christmas Trees of his were cajoled into Gigantism.
Very nice too, except it wasn’t really the CO2 wot did it

Shame to burst his bubble now though, after 30+ years of misunderstanding his own experiment

Dave Fair
Reply to  Peta of Newark
April 7, 2022 3:22 pm

IIRC, everything else (e.g. temperature, humidity & etc.) were controlled.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Peta of Newark
April 7, 2022 5:19 pm

You are thinking of his father I think.

Ron Long
April 7, 2022 10:29 am

What a refreshing treat to see Dr. Craig lay out the incredibly important role of CO2 in the life cycle. The ones that should be stopped are those carbon sequestration schemes.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Ron Long
April 7, 2022 1:25 pm

I do hope you mean Carbon Capture Schemes = where they bury the gas into old oil wells or wherever

Sequestration, by plants, is what Earth needs more of…##
…because… and contary to to popular belief..
Carbon Dioxide does not control weather (directly) – water does.

Also contrary: – when carbon is sequestered by plants, it is an accretion process for carbon (else there’d be completely no soil on this Earth)
But very significantly, the sequestered carbon (Lignin & Cellulose) sequesters immense amounts of water. on what would otherwise be and is falsely labelled: Dry Land

and it is that water, captured in the soil, that controls climate

## a neat trick that would help innumerable people be to make Biochar out of coal.
Gasify the stuff (as per Town Gas of the Good Olde UK Days)
Use the gas for whatever and then bury the left-over coke into farmland and all other soils.
Soak it, for a couple of weeks, in a solution/slurry of poo, liquidised food waste, paper-mill waste etc etc
Could nearly do the same with ‘waste’ plastic – gasify it, burn the gas for energy, electrikery, heating or use it for ‘chemical processes’ such as medicine and then give the left over black powder/dust/bits to farmers, gardeners and those sorts of folks.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Peta of Newark
April 7, 2022 2:33 pm

Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) is the term-of-art for various schemes intended to pump CO2 into the ground or otherwise keep it out of the atmosphere.

April 7, 2022 10:36 am

Good to hear from the agronomy/biology sciences.
Earth’s atmosphere has evolved from billions of years of biogeochemical cycling.
Primordial Earth had an atmosphere similar to Venus.
The lifeless atmosphere of Venus did not evolve, Earth’s was transformed by life.
Except for Argon, the composition of early Earth’s atmosphere has been entirely replaced by biological Nitrogen, Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, Methane, etc.
Water ties the geochemical components with the biological.
This is why physicists will never understand the atmosphere.

Reply to  bwegher
April 7, 2022 6:09 pm

I’ve been reading climate papers and books from the 70’s and 80’s. The complete absence of a pre-conceived narrative is refreshing. All of these references point to the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere being about 4 or 5 years.

Anyway, you might like this paper.

April 7, 2022 10:47 am

I can’t wait.

Steven lonien
April 7, 2022 10:56 am

If Truth matters ? 1919 betz limits phyics law is still used to falsify wind and tide value ignoring Einstimes relativity that concludes infinite values. Oil discovery political financing enriched even nuclear hells spewing now

Reply to  Steven lonien
April 7, 2022 1:26 pm

Did you go off medication recently?

Reply to  Derg
April 7, 2022 3:18 pm

Nah – never started.
(But clearly should have)

Rich Davis
Reply to  Derg
April 7, 2022 5:22 pm

No matter how many times I ridicule him for his “Einstine” spelling, he never learns that it’s Einstein. Seems more likely to be a badly programmed bot.

Reply to  Rich Davis
April 7, 2022 5:45 pm

Hmm 🤔

Richard Page
Reply to  Derg
April 8, 2022 7:56 am

My money is it being a bad translation from the original in Klingon.

Reply to  Steven lonien
April 8, 2022 3:13 am


April 7, 2022 11:08 am

Burning fossil fuels does not cause climate change. Since 2002 the CO2 level has increased 48% of the increase from 1800 to 2002. The average global temperature reported by UAH is about the same as it was in 2002. The average of all agencies shows a temperature increase since 2002 of about 0.1 C°. All agencies report a downtrend since the El Nino peak in 2016. I wonder how much more evidence will be needed for some people to recognize that CO2 level has little, if any, influence on average global temperature. 

current T CO2.jpg
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
April 7, 2022 4:23 pm

If the story decided on was that we are under attack by fairies, intending to eliminate humans, and that was being promologated as CO2 fear is now, there would be a large portion of the population who unconditionally believed we are indeed under fairy attack and there would be many more fairy sightings (those would not even require the Swedish cheerleader’s super powers of observation).

Reply to  AndyHce
April 7, 2022 7:44 pm

The problem is that if you wish hard enough, fairies in the sky come back, IE, Tinkerbell.

The same can not be said about getting rid of CO2 in the sky.

Reply to  Doonman
April 8, 2022 4:22 pm

If the CO2 level gets below 150 ppmv all life not in the oceans would cease.

Steve Case
April 7, 2022 11:18 am

Sadly, most of the population remains woefully unaware of the many positive impacts of CO2 on the biosphere. This is no surprise, considering the constant and steady stream of misinformation our society endures.

Just like the old USSR, the Climate Change juggernaut will eventually collapse. With some more paraphrasing from Solzenytsn’s “The Gulag Archipelago” LINK and a recent post from Rud Istavan

There are five stages:

Stage 1 We know It’s misinformation
Stage 2 They know that we know that.
Stage 3 We know they know that we know that.
Stage 4 And yet the stream of misinformation continues
Stage 5 The USSR Collapsed Christmas 1991 

Sadly Stage 1 for the collapse of Climate Change has yet to occur.

It took 70 years for the USSR collapse under its ponderous weight of propaganda and bullshit. Global Warming/Climate Change – the Existential Crisis of our time had its 40 birthday in the press last August. If history is prolog, I won’t get to hear its death rattle – I’d be 107.  

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Steve Case
April 7, 2022 2:59 pm

Well, there has been a recent move to include other gasses in the bad boy category, principally Methane. My view is that there is enough questioning of CO2 being pollution because plants need it and that a bit of warming is a good thing they need something more horrificthan CO2 and Methane fits the bill.
It has taken at least 20 years for the questioning of CO2 as pollution to become noticable in some of the press. Methane may well buy another deecade or two of blaming humans for a bit of warming

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
April 8, 2022 3:41 pm

Always amuses me that the same people demonizing Methane, simultaneously advocate preserving, restoring and expanding wetlands.
And they seem oblivious to the inevitability that vegetation not eaten by a herbivore (or an insect), will either burn and release CO2, or rot and release methane. All of which just restore to the atmosphere various carbon based molecules that were sourced from there anyway.

Reply to  Steve Case
April 7, 2022 4:25 pm

To some significant extent the USSR ran out of treasure to support itself. In today’s west, huge amounts of treasure are still available to support the story.

Reply to  AndyHce
April 8, 2022 4:43 am

If you want to call IOUs ‘treasure’ then, yeah. The West can still print plenty more IOUs.

April 7, 2022 11:20 am

Go green, not Green, emit. Go black for high density, biodegradable fuels and diverse other applications.

Old Man Winter
April 7, 2022 11:20 am

Dan Pangburn posted this graphic of increased leaf area. I found the
original NASA article in which it appeared.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Old Man Winter
April 7, 2022 12:51 pm

Based on the 2016 NOAA report, in 2022 Earth has been greening for over 40 years. Over that period the world has been experiencing the warming part of an approximately 70-year cycle of warming and cooling. Given that UAH6 documents an approximately 0.13 C/decade warming during that upswing, what is everybody so concerned about? Other than during the recent double-Super El Nino (now falling off like a rock) the world has not warmed noticeably since the end of the 20th Century. A quarter of a century with no CO2-driven warming is not enough for CliSciFi declare an end to their catastrophic narrative?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Dave Fair
April 7, 2022 1:38 pm

Not when so many academic careers have been built off The CAGW myth and academic careers last about 40 years.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 7, 2022 3:28 pm

Well crap, Rud! I’ll die before the current crop of CliSciFi artists fade out.

Floyd Looney
Reply to  Dave Fair
April 7, 2022 2:43 pm

Follow the federal grant money

Dave Fair
Reply to  Floyd Looney
April 7, 2022 5:14 pm

Federal grant money follows politicized policy pronouncement. Been there, done that, got the scars.

Actually, though, I once got some Federal geothermal cash subsidies and State preferences for a project I developed. OK, I’m a Ho.

Reply to  Dave Fair
April 7, 2022 6:19 pm

Are you perhaps a wisecracker? Or a wise cracker?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Scissor
April 7, 2022 8:32 pm

Although I’ve visited the SE U.S. a number of times, I can’t claim the honor. But I tell you a sense of humor is the only reason I can avoid mental overload.

Reply to  Dave Fair
April 7, 2022 6:20 pm

Well, at least geothermal might make some sense as a base load spinning reserve electricity supply, as compared to solar and wind non dispatchable junk asynchronous electricity.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Earthling2
April 7, 2022 8:35 pm

With few exceptions, geothermal is a minor, niche and very limited regional resource. Load following the CA grid with Geysers geothermal is a losing proposition.

Reply to  Dave Fair
April 7, 2022 4:26 pm

Perhaps if climate actually had anything to do with it.

Dave Fair
Reply to  AndyHce
April 7, 2022 4:50 pm

Especially, Andy, when the whole world has known for decades that during a 30-year period in the early 20th Century we had warming without CO2’s help. That warming was of a duration and magnitude equivalent to the late 20th Century warming used as proof of CO2’s impact on climate. And nobody screams: BULLSHIT!

I guess when your betters tell you to shut up you’d better listen. Your very livelihood and your family’s future depends upon it.

Everything I say is based on the great life and career I had before the English Lit. majors and SJW’s took over academia, government and (increasingly) corporations. Since all of it is anti-survival, future generations are in for a rough ride.

Reply to  Old Man Winter
April 7, 2022 3:22 pm

So the middle of Australia has had a ~ 15% increase in leaf area?
There’s 11.5 sq metres there now instead of the previous 10 sq metres?

Reply to  Mr.
April 7, 2022 6:28 pm

Areas that have enough water for some plant life but otherwise is water limited, will be areas that benefit the most from more CO2 in the atmosphere.
First more CO2 means more plant food from the air. Secondly more CO2 means the plants will use water more efficiently.

Old Man Winter
April 7, 2022 11:48 am

These graphics of forests & extreme deserts had temps of -4C from present,
at the Holocene Optimum, & ~ the present T. CO2 was <200ppm, ~270ppm,
& a bit <400ppm. Plants seem to prefer warmer Ts & more CO2, which is
the exact opposite of what the Team™ claims to be good for them!

comment image
comment image
comment image

Reply to  Old Man Winter
April 8, 2022 3:59 pm

Old man,

your glacial maximum map does not conform to sea level being 400 feet lower, with many land bridges not being shown and places as Florida being 3x as big back then…

April 7, 2022 11:56 am

There was a small drop in atmospheric CO2 in March (MLO, monthly average)! While (in some years) there is a slowdown around Feb/March, there was never a drop. WUWT?
comment image

Reply to  Edim
April 7, 2022 1:27 pm

I hope not. C02 is life.

Reply to  Edim
April 7, 2022 6:21 pm

Cold water, is my guess.

Reply to  Edim
April 7, 2022 6:33 pm

This March was the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and energy prices world wide spiked.

Last edited 7 months ago by MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
April 8, 2022 1:24 am

This has nothing to do with human emissions.

Rud Istvan
April 7, 2022 12:32 pm

A little fun logic and factoids to start the CO2 benefits discussion.
Photosynthesis stops at about 50ppm CO2.
Preindustrial was about 280ppm. At that level, ocean carbonate sequestration is balanced with subduction conversion back to CO2 expelled via volcanos. So the planet dies if tectonic subduction were to stop and 230ppm got sequestered.

The best ‘academic’ estimate of carbon sequestration is 310 megatons of Carbon per year, which is 1.14 E+9 of CO2. (Multiply by 44/12 atomic weight).

The atmosphere is estimated to contain 5140 trillion tons of gas, so 5.14 E+15 tons. Losing 230ppm means losing about 1E+13 tons of CO2.

Ignoring the slight mismatch and treating both numbers as simply “1”, the planet would die but for tectonic subduction in 1 E+13/1 E+9 =1 E+6 or 1 million years.

Good thing we discovered plate tectonics, or the carbon alarmists would really have something to be alarmed about and would advocate more fossil fuel use. /s

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 7, 2022 3:45 pm

During the next glaciation period, humans (assuming CliSciFi and/or socialists don’t kill everybody) will produce the needed atmospheric CO2 for plant life to carry on and produce enough food for however many humans exist at that time. Although even then I don’t expect a universal basic income (al a Star Trek) since it has been proven to be anti-survival and, if nothing else, history proves that humans want to survive. The next few worldwide elections may prove that thesis (or not).

Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 7, 2022 4:31 pm

Not true. Advocating more fossil fuel use could not advance the centralization of political power.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 9, 2022 4:21 pm

Plants cease to reproduce below about 150 ppmv so everything not in the ocean would go extinct.

April 7, 2022 12:46 pm

What’s the correct amount of atmospheric CO2? A doubling from preindustrial times at 280 ppmv to 560 ppmv would be ideal. And it will will still take a lot of work to get to that, and this is what some or most of the models are based upon, which is a doubling of CO2 from 1850 to perhaps a doubling by 2100. Bring it on!

Even if it does provide a 1 degree C increase in temps, what’s not to like about that? Far better than a 1 degree cooling, which would be catastrophic to life on the planet with going on an 8 billion population. Seems to be a very good insurance policy on keeping things alive, and at a bare minimum temperature conducive to life. It is just a blip in geological time when some future extended ice age sees CO2 dropping to 150 ppmv and below, and a lot of life ceases to exist.

For the unwashed uninformed folks that I sometimes interact with, ask them to imagine a box full of 10,000 ping pong balls and 3 of them were CO2 ping pong balls. Now we have added another single ping pong ball out of 10,000, making 4 CO2 ping pong balls out of a total of 10,000. And this is a climate emergency over that? The physics for that doesn’t even add up.

Just because the good Earth is close to going extinct at the peak of every glacial maximum when CO2 drops to 180 ppmv, (and below 150 becomes a problem) a doubling from 280 ppmv in an interglacial to 560 ppmv is still a trace atmospheric gas. Doubling next to zero, is still near zero. I didn’t think the fuss over negligible increases in a trace atmospheric gas essential to life would last this long in popular culture. I suppose the old saying about telling a big enough lie for long enough, has some merit.

Last edited 7 months ago by Earthling2
Rud Istvan
Reply to  Earthling2
April 7, 2022 2:32 pm

The problem isn’t so much popular culture. It lies mainly in two things:

  1. The enormous financial momentum built up by research grants to the academic climate community. Lots of careers.
  2. The enormous financial momentum built up by subsidies to the renewables industry. Lots of jobs.

Both stop if the climate money dries up. Which it will after a few crash test dummies in fact crash. Texas ERCOT 2/21 was just a harbinger of such crashes.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 7, 2022 4:12 pm

I absolutely agree with what you say, Rud:

1) As predicted by successful war strategist and President Dwight D. Eisenhower way back in the early 1960s.

2) In accordance with basic human nature, economics 101 and politics 101.

That climate-catastrophe Titanic is going to have to run into a really huge iceberg. Sadly, most people onboard are going to die or severely regress in standards of living, mostly depending on which parts of the world they reside. Like most collisions with ideological movements such as Christianity, Islam, Monarchy, Fascism, Communism and Leftism there will be a lot of common-people casualties.

Last edited 7 months ago by Charlie Skeptic
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 7, 2022 4:35 pm

The overwhelming investment funds in “green” energy that dwarf those other two categories to insignificance.

Dave Fair
Reply to  AndyHce
April 7, 2022 5:03 pm

Andy, did your ancestors invest in tulips?

Reply to  Dave Fair
April 7, 2022 6:32 pm

You somehow believe that my recognition of the many many trillions invested in green energy derivative funds can only be because some genetic ancestor did some particular thing; I can’t see what is in front of my eyes otherwise?

There is also the case, if what I’ve read is correct, that a great part of those many trillions (through probably not a majority part) is comprised of state pension funds. ‘state’ in this context means not only the 50 U.S. states but ‘the state’ which can be any government anywhere.

States obviously have a lot of power to ensure that those investment funds do well as the state controls the laws and regulations that give the funds such a huge advantage. It may well also be true that there are ‘state’ funds other than civil servant pensions that are part of the mix.

Last edited 7 months ago by AndyHce
Dave Fair
Reply to  AndyHce
April 7, 2022 8:40 pm

Andy, go invest in a sense of humor.

Reply to  Earthling2
April 7, 2022 6:43 pm

Most greenhouses boost CO2 levels to around 1000 to 1200ppm.

April 7, 2022 4:45 pm

I’ve been posting this for more than a decade:
Photosynthesis: Plants/Plankton turning Sunlight/CO2/H2O into Food/O2; neither animal nor blade of grass would exist, absent CO2. More CO2 helps plants resist drought/damage/disease, extends growing seasons, lets plants move higher in altitude & Latitudes, shrinks deserts & reduces the spread of fire, plants using & retaining H2O more efficiently. As CO2 rises, photosynthesis flourishes & plants take in more CO2, sparking more growth, photosynthesis & CO2 uptake. Rising temperatures also extend growing seasons, help babies survive, increase net rainfall & save lives.
This Cradle of Life is greener, more fertile & life sustaining than it was 200 years ago. Because adding food to the base of the food-chain helps all of Nature.

Reply to  Icepilot
April 7, 2022 6:26 pm

What’s interesting, at least according to Gaia theory, is that devoid of life, our atmosphere would be more like that of Mars and Venus with more CO2 and no oxygen.

April 7, 2022 6:45 pm

Of course it is always possible to have too much of a good thing – too much carbon dioxide, too much oxygen, too much water, too much beer, too much food, etc etc.

With respect to atmospheric CO2 concentration, the warmunists declared our current low 400s ppm “too much”. But they never any provide empirical proof that such is so … they merely prattle on about the rate of change in CO2 and their claimed, but wholly unproven, assertion of so-called “climate CO2 sensitivity”.

What we do know is that human health effects due to excessive CO2 concentrations do not begin to present until around 20 thousand ppm, and humans can tolerate much higher concentrations than that without permanent tissue damage or death – into the hundreds of thousands of ppm.

Plants can also tolerate far higher concentrations than 400 ppm, as any nursery operator can attest. So the only “problem” is so called global warming . However we know from studies of ancient biological evidence in the form of geologic material composition and “fossil fuels” and various climate proxies that in earlier ages, the CO2 concentrations were far higher than today, yet the earth did not ever experience “runaway” or catastrophic warming, and that the biosphere adapted quite effectively to both warmer climates and higher CO2 concentrations, the latter being NOT the cause of the former but rather a product of the former.

Reply to  Duane
April 8, 2022 5:03 am

Too much beer? Really?

But I gave you an upvote anyway for the rest of the comment.

David Dibbell
April 7, 2022 7:10 pm

Carbon dioxide is also underappreciated as a heat transfer aid. How so?

The atmosphere operates far more powerfully as the compressible working fluid of its own heat engine operation than as a static radiative absorption and emission layer experienced at the surface looking toward space. An incrementally stronger radiative coupling of the lower atmosphere to the surface helps transfer energy – especially the latent energy of water vapor – to the working fluid at the compressed “hot” end of the cycle, and the incrementally stronger radiating effectiveness of the upper atmosphere to space helps reject heat at the expanded “cold” end. The mass flow rates and altitudes achieved in the overturning circulation will be whatever the heat engine cycle produces in response to the conditions experienced by the working fluid at the “hot” and “cold” ends.

One must remember that the conceptual “emitter” of longwave energy to space which keeps things in balance down here is not the surface of land and ocean over most of the planet. It is higher up, and it is not fixed in altitude or output over each element of surface area.

Years ago, in Mechanical Engineering magazine, someone wrote a letter to the editor when the CO2 warming claims began to be actively discussed in the late 1990’s or early 2000’s. The writer described CO2 as a “helper molecule” – i.e., helping with what water vapor does as a component of the working fluid. I wish I had kept a copy, because I think I understand better now what he must have been getting at.

Mike Dubrasich
April 7, 2022 8:18 pm

The Idso’s have been champions of CO2 for decades. Their seminal work has been instrumental in furthering climate realism. Their award-winning website, CO2 Science, has been bookmarked here at WUWT from the beginning. We all owe them unending gratitude for their efforts.

Dr. Craig Idso’s new series on the benefits of CO2 is apparently designed for less technical readers. i.e. the general population. It will be serialized at MasterResource, another excellent website also bookmarked here. I hope WUWT editors will post Idso’s new articles here as well.

Many thanks. KUTGW. You guys are giants.

April 8, 2022 3:02 am

Thank-you Dr Idso for this article and your excellent and important work on the benefits of CO2.

Perhaps the most egregious falsehood of the climate catastrophe narrative is not false things that are said (such as nonsense about impending catastrophe or ridiculously high CO2 “sensitivity”) but rather – true things that are not said.

In climate we need the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

And the most important truth that it not being spoken, that is being actively suppressed, is precisely the benefits of CO2 to plants and to the whole ecosystem and biosphere. An incredible 30% enhancement in the efficiency of photosynthesis has been measured as a – hugely beneficial – consequence of increased CO2. This has been robustly demonstrated NOT to be an indirect consequence of warming or wetness but as a direct enhancement of photosynthesis at the level of the leaf, the stomata and the cell.

Also – perhaps counterintuitively – increased CO2 enhances oxygenation of (“ventilates”) the deep ocean:

Last edited 7 months ago by Phil Salmon
April 8, 2022 3:25 am

These posts about CO2 plant enhancement and greening tend to be troll-free. Where’s Griff? Or Bindidon or Banton? Or bgxyz, etc? Or even our friendly Nick Stokes or the CO2 expert Englebert Humperdink (can’t remember the exact name)?

Here we have only one garbled bot posting.

Why is this? Nothing to say about CO2 greening?

Another Scott
April 8, 2022 1:50 pm

The other greening caused by rising CO2 emissions was in peoples wallets from the increase in global warming based research grants and other climate change industries….

April 8, 2022 9:04 pm

Carbon diozide (CO2). “We simply could not and would not exist without it.” This is why they want to charge us for it as another global get-rich-scheme for the globalists.  

Chris Wright
April 9, 2022 6:49 am

They call themselves green while at the same time demonising the very thing that makes the planet green.
What better proof that the whole thing is barking mad?

%d bloggers like this: