
An undated Earth.com article claims “The foundation of life is at risk from climate change.” This is false. Real-world data shows that the Earth is actually increasing its biomass in response to the mild warming over the last century combined with increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The article itself is nothing more than a mishmash of statements, none of which, separately or in combination, support the claim that climate change is threating life on Earth, as the title implies. There is only a vague statement in the first paragraph which reads:
Photosynthesis forms the foundation of life on Earth, yet climate change increasingly threatens this essential process. With advanced tools, scientists can now study how shifts in temperature, humidity, and light impact photosynthesis and, by extension, the future of ecosystems.
It is true that “[p]hotosynthesis forms the foundation of life on Earth.” Photosynthesis is considered the foundation of life on Earth because it provides the oxygen we breathe and the food we eat, essentially acting as the base of the global food chain by converting sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide into chemical energy that sustains almost all living organisms on the planet.
But what isn’t true is the claim that climate change is threatening the process of photosynthesis. In fact, data from multiple sources show that photosynthesis is actually being enhanced by the slight increase in temperature as well as the increased concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere. Climate at a Glance – Global Greening, discusses the fact that NASA satellite imagery analysis from 2016 shows significant plant growth globally over the past 35 years as seen in Figure 1 below. The reference article also says:
Research from NASA as well as multiple other studies conclude that the increased plant growth is a response to rising carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere creating better growing conditions.
NASA’s results confirm earlier research which found that the 14 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 between 1982 and 2010 resulted in a 5-to-10 percent increase in green foliage cover in warm, arid environments.
Plant life is not just expanding in temperate regions. A 2018 study found the Sahara Desert had shrunk in area by 8 percent over the previous three decades, due a CO2 fertilization induced expansion of plant coverage.
Follow-up studies in 2018 and 2020, showed that on a global scale, greening can be attributed to the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

This is logical, because actual greenhouses use warmth and artificially increased carbon dioxide to provide a better growth environment for the plants. These facts are not in dispute, therefore it stands to reason that a slightly warmer Earth and with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, all things being equal, provides a better environment for plant growth. Not only that, but a very recent peer reviewed paper published in Nature from Cornell University and the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory found that Plants Absorb 31% More CO2 Than Previously Thought.
These findings refute the claims made in Earth.com’s article and headline photosynthesis and life on Earth are being “threatened.”
This isn’t truly surprising because the article itself provides no factual evidence to support its alarming claims. Earth.com’s article appears to be just another example of sloppy journalism in which a writer stitched together a few unrelated factoids about photosynthesis to make the article look “sciency,” only to leap to unsupported and false assertions that climate change is hampering photosynthesis and threatening life on Earth, when, in fact, there isn’t even a smidgen of evidence to support the claim. Earth.com did its readers a great disservice by pushing this false claim, which appears to be little more than a scare tactic.

Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.
Originally posted at ClimateREALISM
1. More rain is not a problem.
2. Warmer weather is not a problem.
3. More arable land is not a problem.
4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.
6. There isn’t any Climate Crisis.
Communication on climate change is grossly tainted / warped as a result of the reward system… if you want to publish and get a tenured faculty position you must walk the talk. I am long term member of AAAS subscribing to Science family of publications. Every week has multiple articles, essays, papers on climate change. Correct scientific evaluations aren’t published, balanced views are punished by not being published.
Past warm periods are referred to as Climate optimums, ie the Minoan Optimum and the Roman Optimum. Do we really think that a new Mini Ice Age would make the weather better.
Man. Maybe instead of filing this under “Bad Science Journalism” you need to add a new and more appropriate category called “Bald-faced Lies.”
The first three comments hit all the high points already.
I have to say I feel sorry for the Romanian footballer who shares the same name with Andrei Ionescu. Ouch.
Andrei Ionescu
As seen in: MSN (US), Wiley Online Library, MDPI, scoop.it, Genetic Literacy Project, NewsBreak, The Journal of the American Dental Association, Sport.ro, Earth.com, Blogarama and more.
https://muckrack.com/andrei-ionescu/articles
Spooky stories of the blood-sucking chupacabra: Fact or fiction?
Health threats of climate change have hit record levels
Can we fix faulty genes before birth?
The foundation of life is at risk from climate change
Recognizing emotions in horses can improve their health
Scientists detect molecules that store carbon in space
How will climate change affect our outdoor activities?
ad nauseam.
If one really knows an animal one gets an idea of how the animal is without the voodoo.
The head of the World Wildlife Fund pays himself $1.2 million a year.
Somehow, that will reduce climate change?
“Climate change is the perfect crisis,” says Tierney, “You can attribute anything to it, and it’s always in the future.”
The fund says climate change increased the number of “major hurricanes.”
“There’s been no long-term growth in the intensity or the number of hurricanes,” Tierney points out, “but every time one comes, it’s a great photo op for the crisis industry to use to say, ‘This is climate change!'”
“This isn’t truly surprising because the article itself provides no factual evidence to support its alarming claims.”
But… but.. who needs facts when you have emotions- and so many people who stand to enrich themselves from this phony emergency?
Several years a go I questioned a gentleman posting on an alarmist forum, similar to this but in a opposite vein, on his personal impacts from warming temperatures. His answer, after a little thought and actual observation, was that the impacts on his life had been positive. I lost track of him shortly after and saw no more comments from him on the dangers of global warming. Of course, this while it was still global warming rather than climate change.
I now ask if any negative impacts on their lives can be attributed to climate change or if government policy is a bigger factor. I usually leave at this point as the political arguments often become rather intense. Safer to move to another bar table and bring up religion.
The benefits of more CO2 affect plants and humans. The warmer winters benefit humans and also extend the plant growing seasons. There is no bad news from more CO2 in the atmosphere..
But the recent claim of 31% more CO2 absorption by plants study is nonsense. No one knows exactly how much CO2 plants absorb in total. A 31% increase from an unknown starting point is just junk science.
Climate change is full of false peer reviewed studies. Mainly about the alleged dangers of CO2, which is not dangerous at all. But there are also some junk science studies that conservative favor.
Nature absorbs about half AS MUCH CO2 AS HUMANS EMIT TO THE ATMOSPHERE EVERY YEAR. THE CLAIMED PERCENTAGES ABSORBED BY OCEANS, PLANTS AND LAD ARE JUST ROGH ESTIMATES.
Story tip
Friederike Otto of World Weather Attribution says global warming made everything worse.
– – – – – – – – –
Revealed: The 10 DEADLIEST extreme weather events over the past 20 years – and scientists say climate change made them ALL worseFrom droughts, floods and heatwaves, it seems no corner of the globe has been spared by fatal climate events in the past two decades.
A new study reveals the 10 deadliest extreme weather events since 2004, which combined caused more than 570,000 deaths.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-14020333/10-DEADLIEST-extreme-weather-events-climate.html
An alternative perspective …
One of the conjectures on how life got started on planet Earth is that some primordial “Replicator” molecule was produced by the complex chemistry near hydrothermal vents on the sea-floor, at depths of 2 or 3 miles (3 to 5 kilometres).
3.8(-ish) billion years later some of their descendants, including multi-cellular lifeforms, can be observed via deep-sea submarines.
Question 1) How, exactly, is “climate change” on the surface supposed to impact those “foundational” ecosystems ?
Question 2) In a WW-III scenario, with a full-on nuclear exchange on the surface, how would (or could) those ecosystems be impacted ?
.
See also : Bacteria found in “solid” rock a mile or two (2 to 3 kilometres) below the surface in mines dug around the world.
Story tip
Papua New Guinea to boycott ‘waste of time’ UN climate summit
Andrei Ionescu, writer, seems to NOT be the source of the story (maybe needing to pay the rent), relies on the work of Rakesh Tiwari, a postdoctoral researcher at Uppsala University‘s Department of Ecology and Genetics. They have “discovered” that many plants do not perform optimally when it gets really hot and dry. Who knew?
Wine grapes (Vitis vinifera) have been studied for years and show they do best between 25° and 30°C. [mid-point = 81.5° F] Grape growers have responded by installing misting systems over or within the canopy. I first saw such a set-up in 1976, but it is much older than that, beginning long before modern science could measure it accurately. Here is a link to a 2012 article:
https://academic.oup.com/aobpla/article/doi/10.1093/aobpla/pls009/175387
Where I work is wise enough to block that site.
Fork me, you’d think these people had never seen an actual greenhouse…
Very nice Anthony.
Keep repeating the lies, and some people will always believe it. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Fight misinformation with information.