Craig Idso on CO2 Benefits: A Summary

From MasterResource

By Robert Bradley Jr

“Over the past quarter-century I have archived a number of studies on my CO2 Science website about the incredible benefit that the world is experiencing as the air’s CO2 content continues its upward rise. It will give you a whole new perspective on the many benefits of atmospheric CO2 enrichment.”

Dr. Craig Idso, chair of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, wrote a series of posts last year at MasterResource about how rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) benefits humanity and nature. These posts are linked and summarized below.

The Many Benefits of Rising Atmospheric CO2 — An Introduction (April 6, 2022)

“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…. 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.”

Increased Plant Productivity: The First Key Benefit of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment (April 21, 2022)

“Based on the numerous experiments listed there, I can tell you that, typically, a 300-ppm increase in the air’s CO2 content … will raise the productivity of most herbaceous plants by about one-third, which stimulation is generally manifested by an increase in the number of branches and tillers, more and thicker leaves, more extensive root systems, and more flowers and fruit.”

CO2 Enrichment Improves Plant Water-Use Efficiency (May 20, 2022)

“In basic terms, plant water-use efficiency is the amount of biomass produced by a plant per unit of water lost via transpiration…. Most plants experience water-use efficiency gains on the order of 70 to 100%–or more—for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (see and read reviews of multiple peer-reviewed studies under subheadings of Water-Use Efficiency here on my CO2 Science website).

Elevated CO2 and the Enhancement of Plant Medicinal Properties (June 9, 2022)

“… elevated CO2 significantly increased the production of carbohydrates, proteins, fats and crude fibers in caraway, as well as organic and amino acids, regardless of growth stage (sprout or mature plants). Higher CO2 also enhanced plant mineral content, vitamins and phenolics, as well as antioxidant and antibacterial activities.”

CO2: Negating Ozone for Plant Productivity (June 28, 2022)

“Tropospheric ozone (O3) is a gaseous air pollutant that results from incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. It negatively affects plant growth…. However, the situation may not be as bad as it seems, especially when the positive effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on plant growth and yield are factored in, which typically reduce or fully negate plant cell damage from ozone.”

Elevated CO2 Reduces Temperature Stress in Plants (July 20, 2022)

“So when the next summer heat wave arrives along with all the negative spin stories demonizing CO2 as its cause, I hope you will remember this post and the numerous scientific studies proving rising CO2 levels helps plants better withstand and recover from temperature-induced stresses. And when you do remember this, please share it with others!”

Ocean Acidification Cut Down to Size (August 22, 2022)

“Ocean acidification and warming concerns, however, are vastly overstated and generally far out of touch with reality. In almost every instance, the predicted degree of harm is exaggerated due to improper scenario inputs that utilize the most extreme scenarios of future temperature and seawater pH. Furthermore, their projections fail to take into account the ability of species to acclimate and adapt, both within and across generations.”

Current and Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations Pose No Threat to Human Health (October 3, 2022)

“Atmospheric CO2 is not causing, nor will it ever cause, a direct threat to your health or cognitive performance. CO2 levels would need to increase some 36 times above the present concentration before they would even begin to pose a mild health concern.”

The Dangers of Low Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations (November 1, 2022)

“CO2 literally is the ‘food’ that sustains essentially all plants (and animals who consume plants, including humans) on the face of the Earth. And when that food supply is diminished, nature begins to diminish.”


Also see a book review by Chip Knappenberger (“55 Positive Externalities: Hail to Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment)” of Sherwood and Craig Idso’s The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment (2011).

Appendix: Craig D. Idso

Dr. Craig Idso is the founder and CEO of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 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 CO2 Science online and maintains a comprehensive 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.

He is the author or co-author of 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).

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.

5 36 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ron Long
February 9, 2023 2:21 am

Good News report from Dr. Idso. Remember that NASA has announced a world-wide 10% “greening” of the earth. The various multi and hyper spectral sensors on satellites readily identify the strong chlorophyll peak at between 710 and 740 nanometers (near infrared). This “greening” report is free of politics, models, and tortured data. Eat your veggies!

Reply to  Ron Long
February 9, 2023 4:25 am

In addition to giving us food, that greening helps keep glaciers at bay. Bad things happen when atmospheric CO2 is low.

Bryan A
Reply to  Scissor
February 9, 2023 9:15 am

CO2 is not and cannot cause cognitive impairment…however…the fear invoked by the politicized messaging will cause cognitive dissonance

Reply to  Ron Long
February 9, 2023 5:27 am

NASA satellite vegetation index doesn’t get much publicity.
Must be illegal to say anything good about CO2?

Honest Climate Science and Energy: NASA Vegetation Index 2000 through 2021

Vegetation Index [NDVI] (16 day – Terra/MODIS) | NASA

February 9, 2023 2:34 am

Over the last couple of decades we have evidence of a greening Earth. That’s no accident and it is a very good thing. But in Alarmland that’s a [huge] benefit we should be doing without.

“So, to put it simply, humans are producing more carbon dioxide. This carbon dioxide is causing more plant growth, and a higher capacity to suck up carbon dioxide. This process is called the “carbon dioxide fertilisation effect” – a phenomenon when carbon emissions boost photosynthesis and, in turn, plant growth.

What we didn’t know until our study is just how much the carbon dioxide fertilisation effect contributes to the increase in global photosynthesis on land.

But don’t get confused, our discovery doesn’t mean emitting carbon dioxide is a good thing and we should pump out more carbon dioxide, or that land-based ecosystems are removing more carbon dioxide emissions than we previously thought (we already know how much this is from scientific measurements).

And it definitely doesn’t mean mean we should, as climate sceptics have done, use the concept of carbon dioxide fertilisation to downplay the severity of climate change.”

They are perfectly aware of the benefits and they are determined to put an end to them; if they possibly can.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  strativarius
February 9, 2023 3:50 am

Not 97% but closer to 99% of what I have read on The Conversation is rubbish. Any thorough researcher should avoid it like the plague.

Reply to  Michael in Dublin
February 9, 2023 3:56 am

It’s academia – bang on narrative

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  strativarius
February 9, 2023 3:53 am

Next they’ll be telling us all that oxygen in the air is going to burn out our lungs if we don’t do what they say…

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
February 9, 2023 3:58 am

Don’t tell them about the hydroxyl radical…

abolition man
Reply to  strativarius
February 9, 2023 8:32 am

Humankind’s general ignorance of geological processes and history are being used to try and bring about a totalitarian world government! If ACTUAL science was taught to our children, then they would know that there is NO correlation between CO2 and temperature, and that temps ALWAYS rise rapidly just prior to the end of interglacials! Pray that that is not now occurring!
CO2, the magic gas of Life, does not have a strong enough GHE to prevent the return of glaciation; ANY efforts to reduce it’s production are a waste of blood and treasure, and should be seen as not merely a crime against humanity, but a crime against ALL life on Earth!

Javier Vinós
February 9, 2023 2:55 am

There’s no denying it. CO2 is incredibly good for the biosphere. If we want to “save the planet” [sarc.] we need more of it.

We should use solar and wind power to burn limestone, to get more of the good CO2. Fossil fuel burning just doesn’t produce enough of it for the biosphere.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Javier Vinós
February 9, 2023 3:55 am

We shouldn’t use worse-than-useless solar and wind power for anything. That’s just a waste of resources.

Javier Vinós
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
February 9, 2023 9:02 am

You don’t get the irony of using renewables to produce CO2.

abolition man
Reply to  Javier Vinós
February 9, 2023 8:18 am

If humanity does survive into a distant future, they will require a reliable energy source to produce the large amounts of CO2 needed to preserve terrestrial life. Solar and wind are too diffuse and unreliable to justify them in anything other than niche use, and museums where they can be used to highlight the insanity of alarmist groupthink! Go nuclear or better!

Javier Vinós
Reply to  abolition man
February 9, 2023 9:08 am

At the CO2 rate of decrease during the Phanerozoic, it can be extrapolated that there will be no complex life on Earth in 150 more million years due to lack of sufficient CO2 in the atmosphere. That’s much earlier than the 5 billion years usually cited for the Sun to become a red giant.

February 9, 2023 3:08 am

consumerism is the great evil , devouring resources . oxidation is the great and prototypical consumer . it’s oxygen that compels humans to consume other living things on this planet . co2 is the great giver , transforming itself into living things that oxygen consumes . truly peace loving folk should decry oxygen and exalt co2

Last edited 1 month ago by garboard
February 9, 2023 3:48 am

Now for a bad news:
CO2 is nothing but distraction
It’s California’s turn next.
The ancient Greek’s sacrificed sisters are still rumbling throughout solar system skys.
Look out for appearance of the next comet and head for open spaces camping for few days.
Green comet was visible on Friday’s night; the great earthquake of Turkey happened early morning on Monday morning.
Just saying.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  vuk
February 9, 2023 4:38 am

OMG – that was one of them sisters that Brandon ‘Successfully took down‘ wasn’t it?
Muppet. But did anyone expect less, the paranoia is palpable.

As the song goes:
Bang bang, he shot me down
Bang bang, I hit the ground
Bang bang, that awful sound
Bang bang, my baby shot me down.

And there’s the Green Comet:
Brandon is killing Gaia

Back on topic: There’s lots of stories about Magical Thinking these days. whassup?

Reply to  Peta of Newark
February 9, 2023 8:08 am

And that’s the Gaia who dunnit.

Reply to  Peta of Newark
February 9, 2023 12:16 pm

Hasn’t magical thinking always been the favorite pastime of humans?

Rod Evans
February 9, 2023 4:41 am

Just so we are not in any doubt about the pros and cons of CO2.
The pros.

  1. Increasing CO2 has caused an increase in plant growth.
  2. Increasing CO2 has improved the health of plants.
  3. Increasing CO2 has reduced the desertification of marginal lands.
  4. Increased CO2 has reduced the water consumption of plants in arid areas.
  5. Increased CO2 has generated record harvests year after year this century.
  6. Increased CO2 has reduced hunger and starvation this century.

The cons.

  1. Increasing CO2 has been falsely claimed by fools to be a pollutant.

Did I miss anything?

Reply to  Rod Evans
February 9, 2023 5:35 am

Increased CO2 has HELPED generated record harvests year after year this century.

You missed:
“Scientists say increased CO2 is worse than we thought — it will flood Manhattan, cause cancer, cause warts and kill your dog dead as a doornail. The only cure is building windmills and solar panels. And don’t you forget it.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 9, 2023 1:15 pm

Actually, what they say is that your dog’s carbon pawprint contributes to climate change and you need to kill it dead as a doornail.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rod Evans
February 9, 2023 5:36 am

I think you covered it all.

Chris Nisbet
Reply to  Rod Evans
February 9, 2023 8:23 am

Another benefit… CO2 might have helped to warm the planet a little bit.

Reply to  Chris Nisbet
February 9, 2023 12:18 pm

might have

joe x
Reply to  Rod Evans
February 9, 2023 9:29 am

nope. you did not miss a thing rod. yours is one of the best examples of the importance and value co2 plays to all life on earth. short, sweet and accurate and defend-able on every point.

Bryan A
Reply to  Rod Evans
February 9, 2023 9:33 am

It actually does more than…
3. …reduced the desertification of marginal lands
It has also Increased the Oasification of marginal lands.

It has caused further greening of former desert areas

Reply to  Rod Evans
February 9, 2023 11:27 am

Maybe Rod,
If your country suddenly runs out of CO2 because of stupid decisions made by stupid politicians it affects every one .
Here in New Zealand with our green infested government intent on strangling our economy because they all believe that CO2 is the evil gas and should be eliminated .
We have a drastic shortage of CO2 for all the things that CO2 is used for in the modern world .
Carbon dioxide has many industrial uses in refrigeration, beer making and carbonated drinks ,
fire extinguishers and for enhancing the growth of plants in green houses .
What a shambles .Not one person in our present government is capable of even running a corner dairy .

Reply to  Graham
February 9, 2023 3:59 pm

What they are capable of is making the running of a corner dairy a ruinous and hazardous endeavor, due to a deluge of ram raids that have been fostered by a succession of ideologically driven policies which enable mid teen hooligans to rampage unimpeded. And those are the only policies they have been able to implement at all – thankfully. Socialists ruin everything!

February 9, 2023 5:05 am

Someone needs to point this out to the engineering giants that run the Los Angeles City Council. Apparently they want to convert natural gas plants to burn green hydrogen. Los Angeles To Convert Its Largest Natural Gas Power Plant To Hydrogen | They are still worried about the H2 fueled plants affect on the climate and on risks to public health. No one in the article seemed to be worried about the cost however.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Sean2828
February 9, 2023 9:42 am

The article says that at first some hydrogen will be added to the gas supply but gives no indication of how much.

In the UK a trial is underway in the small village of Wincanton (668 homes) in NE England with a blend of 20% hydrogen and 80% natural gas. This is the highest % of hydrogen that can be used that does not necessitate the complete replacement of the gas distribution infrastructure and the use of hydrogen specific appliances. I would imagine the same is true in LA.

Last edited 1 month ago by Dave Andrews
Reply to  Dave Andrews
February 9, 2023 12:21 pm

Amazing! An actual pilot program?

Dave Andrews
Reply to  AndyHce
February 10, 2023 5:59 am

Yep, started Aug 2021 with 2% hydrogen to be increased to 20% over time so they could monitor progress and if any unexpected problems arose.

Reply to  Dave Andrews
February 9, 2023 2:56 pm

Why are they doing this pilot project. UK has plenty of gas (if we drill for it). Hydrogen takes buckets of electricity to produce. Seems pointless to me.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Mariner
February 10, 2023 6:01 am

I agree. Just reporting that it is happening 🙂

February 9, 2023 5:14 am

I used to try to read one scientific study a month for the past 25 years. Most of them were on CO2 enrichment and plant growth, which most interested me. But studies are tough reading. Often written by foreign Ph.D.s who are not great writers.

I decided to stop reading CO2 – plant growth studies at the end of last year — they almost all said C3 plants love more CO2. A few said C4 plants grew a little more with higher CO2. The conclusions were almost always similar, as greenhouse owners knew long ago.

There is another source of one page summaries of scientific CO2 plant studies presented by Craif Ipso, Ph,D,.

He stopped adding the summaries a few years ago. I was disappointed because I used to visit the website every day for many years to read his latest study summaries.

I’ve started to re-read the one page summaries this year.

There were so many posts however, that the index is huge.

Here’s how to navigate there, and find an interesting post
(the hot links below look like they are all the same, but they are not the same URL — the last link is one example of a one-page summary of a scientific CO2 – plant study that I assume was written by Craig Ipso.)

The A through Z subject index is here:
CO2 Science

I clicked on “A” to see all the subjects listed under “A”
CO2 Science

Under the A subjects I see Agriculture,
which interested me,
and under “species” I clicked on peanuts,
which I like to eat, and I once grew
a peanut plant at work
CO2 Science

At the link above I see a list of studies involving peanuts,
and I clicked on one with an interesting title
A one page summary can be read at the link below:

Peanuts Perform Well in High-CO2 AirReference
Vu, J.C.V. 2005. Acclimation of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) leaf photosynthesis to elevated growth CO2 and temperature.  Environmental and Experimental Botany 53: 85-95.

CO2 Science

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Sean Galbally
February 9, 2023 5:15 am

Nor can the minimal 0.04% of atmospheric carbon dioxide made by man burning fossil fuels cause a noticeable effect on the climate. Net Zero is a criminal con trick by governments, big business, Russia, India and China. The climate has always changed and always will. It is predominantly due the sun’s activity.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Sean Galbally
February 9, 2023 5:53 am

0.04% is the total CO2 component of the atmosphere, most of which is natural. Man has ‘supposedly’ contributed a third of that, 0.014%, or 14 thousandths of one percent.

Richard M
Reply to  Sean Galbally
February 9, 2023 6:23 am

While the CO2 concentration appears low it still can absorb all of the available surface IR radiation within 10 meters of the surface. The low percentage values like 0.04% are kind of deceptive. Adding more CO2 cannot absorb more than all. This is why increasing CO2 has no effect. Not because CO2 is a low concentration, but because it is so high.

One thing increased CO2 does do is cause an increase in IR radiation back towards the surface. This is called back radiation and the effect has been measured. However, since this happens from such a low altitude the only real effect is a small increase in evaporation. No warming occurs.

The reason this increase in CO2 doesn’t cause warming is the surface and low atmosphere exist in thermal equilibrium. This means the two objects must exchange lots of energy back and forth to keep their respective temperatures the same. As a result, when more low atmosphere CO2 molecules are radiating energy towards the surface, this must temporarily cool the atmosphere and warm the surface. Thermal equilibrium processes quickly correct this imbalance. The only way to regain equilibrium is for the surface to move energy back into the low atmosphere.

The energy is then moved quickly back into the atmosphere. The net result is almost no change. Both the surface and the low atmosphere are back where they started. Well, almost. The additional radiation will also cause some increased evaporation which cools the surface.

That’s right, increasing CO2 concentration has a minor cooling effect, but it also turns out there’s a minor warming effect to balance it out. The wings of the absorption bands widen as CO2 increases allow a small amount of increased IR energy to be collected into the low atmosphere.

Climate science claims this movement of energy from the surface to the atmosphere is a warming effect. However, this is false as the combination of the surface and low atmosphere sees no change at all.

Reply to  Richard M
February 9, 2023 8:09 am

can absorb all of the available surface IR radiation within 10 meters of the surface…

sorry RM, that’s not right. The atmospheric window from 8 to 14 microns, covering Earthly temperatures from +90 C to -65 C (Wein’s law temp) is nearly IR transparent and mostly lets IR directly from ground to outer space if the sky is clear (Ok, let say 80% for the picky).
There is, of course, also 65% cloud cover and some dust that gets in the way of that IR as it leaves…and the SB equation’s -T^4 sky temperature confounds one’s logic for a couple of semesters worth of atmospheric thermodynamics and radiative heat transfer courses….

Last edited 1 month ago by DMacKenzie
Richard M
Reply to  DMacKenzie
February 9, 2023 11:59 am

Did you stop reading after the first paragraph? A little further down I said

“The wings of the absorption bands widen as CO2 increases allow a small amount of increased IR energy to be collected into the low atmosphere.”

According to Dr. Heinz Hug this adds about .17% for CO2 doubling. Insignificant.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard M
Reply to  Richard M
February 9, 2023 7:14 pm

I quoted the exact part which you incorrectly stated and explained why. Hug’s .17% or .054 W/m^2 is just incorrect.
Vanwijngaarden and Happer’s paper here in Fig 10 and it’s footnote, shows 3 watts from 400 to 800 ppm CO2 increase.

Harde in Table 8 here calculates 3.77 watts

It is unlikely that 3 watts will turn the planet into a fiery cinder, More likely it will simply evaporate more surface water, thus increasing evapotranspiration from 86 to 88 watts, plus reflect another watt or so of incoming SW off the additional clouds.

Richard M
Reply to  DMacKenzie
February 10, 2023 9:11 am

Here’s where Hug documented his claims. Please tell us where he got it wrong. Show your math.

If Hug is right, the 3 watts do not come from the wings. They are probably due to the increase in low atmosphere emissivity and, as I explained above, have no warming effect.

Steve Case
February 9, 2023 5:43 am

Elevated CO2 and the Enhancement of Plant Medicinal Properties (June 9, 2022)

“… elevated CO2 significantly increased the production of carbohydrates, proteins, fats and crude fibers in caraway, as well as organic and amino acids, regardless of growth stage (sprout or mature plants). Higher CO2 also enhanced plant mineral content, vitamins and phenolics, as well as antioxidant and antibacterial activities.”

A Google search on “CO2 Plants Nutritious” turns up page after page that says, “High CO2 Makes Crops Less Nutritious”

Just yesterday someone here at WattsUpWithThat posted this quote:

     “Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are
     facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that
     one of them is wrong.” – Ayn Rand

Considering that the so-called mainstream media exaggerates, cherry picks and just plain lies about every aspect of “Climate Change” it’s a slam dunk as to who’s right. How can I say that?! Well, do a Google News search on “Methane times” and you will get page after page that says methane is so many times more powerful at trapping heat than CO2. Anyone who digs just a little bit will realize that’s a classic example of lying with statistics.

The less nutritious claim is probably a cherry pick. A large number of different crops were grown in an increased CO2 atmosphere and then tested for everything that could be thought of, and it was found that one protein came up deficient in one variety of soybeans and that’s what was reported. My guess is that’s the protein that controls the number of stomata on the under side of the leaves. Plants will produce fewer stomata under higher CO2 concentrations.

Factoid alert:

How do scientists know what CO2 levels were millions of years ago?
The stomata are counted on the bottom of fossil leaves. Fewer stomata
per mm² means a higher CO2 content in the ancient atmosphere.

Here’s a LINKYPOO for that.

Reply to  Steve Case
February 9, 2023 12:39 pm

I don’t claim any direct knowledge but my reading says greenhouse growers, who have been using increased CO2 in their greenhouses for 50 to 80 years to improve yields, found out long ago that achieving optimal results required a different balance of various fertilizer ingredients. My understanding is that the reduced water usage under higher CO2 concentrations means less soluble elements reach the plant. This is corrected by increasing the concentration of those materials in the soil or the water.

Deficiencies reported in alarmist studies means they are simply not applying the results of scientific agricultural advances, possibly to insure they have something about which to alarm the public.

John Shewchuk
February 9, 2023 6:12 am

Excellent report — which confirms CO2 is good and not bad. In fact, even though the science confirms greenhouse gas thermal properties, there still is no proof that CO2 has actually created global warming. This is obvious by its absence. All important socio-economic indicators are available via the Internet. You can find how much the Stock Market increased last year, and you can can find how much the price of a barrel of oil increased last year, and you can even find out how much CO2 concentrations increased last year. But … you can not find how much “man-made” CO2 warmed the earth last year. That report does not exist, for obvious reasons.

February 9, 2023 6:12 am

What if us releasing the trapped CO2 was the greatest symbiotic gift humans have ever given nature?

February 9, 2023 6:34 am

The real tragedy of the Green/Anti-CO2 movement is that the trillions of dollars wasted on wind and solar could have been profitably invested in nuclear and other tried and tested tech. We’d all have been better off with lower electric bills.

Steve Case
Reply to  gunsmithkat
February 9, 2023 6:49 am

It’s more than anti-CO2 There’s this from my recent email:

                                 If You Leave the Gate Open  
If you leave the gate open, the cow will wander off. So, if you intentionally leave the gate open, you want the cow to wander off. You can’t blame stupidity or laziness. It was intentional. 
If you cut police budgets, you will get more crime on the streets. So, if you intentionally cut police budgets, you wanted more crime on the streets. 
If you cut back the supply of oil, gas prices will go up. So if you intentionally cut back the supply of oil, you wanted gas prices to go up. 
If you print trillions of dollars without increasing the supply of goods, inflation will hit hard. So if you intentionally print trillions of dollars without more goods you wanted inflation to hit hard. 
If you leave the southern border wide open, you get more drug trafficking and human trafficking. So if you intentionally leave the border wide open, you wanted more drug trafficking and human trafficking. 
If you shut down 40% of the supply of baby formula in February, you’ll get a huge shortage. When you KNOW a huge baby formula shortage is coming because of the FDAs actions and you purposefully do nothing to prevent it, month after month, until the crisis finally hits hard, you INTENDED this crisis. 
It is time to recognize the evil people behind that old man. They want crisis. They want chaos. They want riots. They want conflicts in your town. 
Their stated purpose years ago with Obama was to “take the US down a few notches on the world stage.” You can feel the quality of your life going down with the country. 
These are not foolish or misguided people. They are intentionally and purposely taking our country somewhere we don’t want to go… 


joe x
Reply to  Steve Case
February 9, 2023 9:45 am

spot on steve.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Steve Case
February 9, 2023 9:58 am

Apart from the politician’s names and the Baby Formula that applies to the UK in every respect.

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
February 9, 2023 12:39 pm

That exactly describes what our green and communist infected government is doing here in New Zealand .
We get what the News Media say was an unprecedented rainfall event that struck Auckland 3 weeks ago .
Auckland city has often had large amounts of rain fall many times before .
Did the Auckland council make sure that the storm water grates were clear and that larger storm water pipes were installed to take water from increasing subdivisions?
No they did not so now they can blame it all on climate change ,or did they want it to happen to convince the city people that climate change is real ?
Unprecedented NO.
100 miles south in 1958 the Otorohanga and Te Kuiti flood had a higher rainfall over three days than the 2023 flood in Auckland ,well before climate change was ever thought .Certainly not unprecedented

Reply to  Graham
February 9, 2023 4:39 pm

1986, Cyclone Bola, 70km north of Auckland City, 247mm in 24 hours, most of which came down in the period from 2pm to 7pm. Measured that myself. The heaviest rainfall Ive ever seen, and that includes the wet season in Papua New Guinea, and the Auckland storm 2 weeks ago.

Reply to  Steve Case
February 9, 2023 10:38 am

Yes, you are right. It is the Cloward-Piven plan.

Reply to  gunsmithkat
February 9, 2023 1:21 pm

It’s not a tragedy, it’s a plan. No one makes mistakes of that size innocently. They don’t want you better off. They want you dead.

Andy Pattullo
February 9, 2023 12:25 pm

The biosphere is entering a renaissance. Humans may be playing a major role if, as is commonly believed, our activities are the main cause of a rising atmospheric CO2 concentration.

The features of this renaissance are:

  • a relatively rapid rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration after having fallen to levels not much higher than what would lead to starvation of the entire biosphere
  • increasing productivity of photosynthetic life (plants, pigmented microbes, algae) leading to a substantial increase in carbon-based biomass in the biosphere, or in other words more life on Earth
  • increased potential for life and diversity among the animal species that depend on photosynthetic species for food
  • the bio-synthetic accumulation of increasing amounts of solar energy within the biosphere as chemical energy bonds in living tissue and bio-sediments, creating an increasing supply of energy compounds for secondary processes including those that drive human civilization
  • a rapid rise in biodiversity as more land, fresh water and marine spaces move from barren to productive and the density of species within productive spaces increases
  • a negation of many of the factors that limit bio-growth during low atmospheric CO2 periods such as drought, heat, and oxidative stresses.
  • a dramatic and historic rise in the well-being of human civilization by almost any measure while humans have learned to protect the natural environment from that same success
  • increased human nutrition, well-being and longevity
  • reduced human susceptibility to adverse natural forces

This is nothing short of a miraculous blossoming of both the biosphere and human society. The rise of organized human civilization within the current inter-glacial may be the most important motive force to this welcome change.

So why are the global elite fixated on a mythical climate crisis for which they have no objective evidence, and why are all of their solutions designed to reverse this stunning blossoming of life on Earth and stifle the future of humankind? This may be the precise human behaviour for which the word “evil” was invented.

We should be spending our time and thoughts on how to make the most of being born in one the of the best times on Earth.

Reply to  Andy Pattullo
February 9, 2023 1:24 pm

Why are they fixated on a crisis for which there’s no evidence? It’s simple: to rule.

February 9, 2023 1:05 pm

Reading about the vegetation index scares me. So many places where “corrections” are used/required. One bad ideal could shift the trend.

Reply to  KevinM
February 9, 2023 1:07 pm

The vegetation indices are retrieved from daily, atmosphere-corrected, bidirectional surface reflectance. The VI’s use a MODIS-specific compositing method based on product quality assurance metrics to remove low quality pixels. From the remaining good quality VI values, a constrained view angle approach then selects a pixel to represent the compositing period (from the two highest NDVI values it selects the pixel that is closest-to-nadir).

February 9, 2023 1:53 pm

Very nice.

February 9, 2023 3:23 pm
%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights