We keep hearing about how bad carbon dioxide is, but is it really that bad? Is it just a footnote to our doom? Is it being played like a fiddle to destroy our nation? What is carbon dioxide and what has it done in the past and what can it do in the future? Have we been wrongly informed and lied to about carbon dioxide? Why is carbon dioxide being blamed for a climate change that is naturally occurring?
So many questions with few real answers. We should sit back and look at the truth about carbon dioxide, like how it makes tress and plants of all types grow better. Recently, the people at NASA produced a map of the world showing our earth seemingly turning darker green. Why is it doing that? Because the plants and trees use carbon dioxide to grow. If we reduce or bring carbon dioxide to zero, plants, trees and vegetation will cease to exist and, in the result, so will all animals in the oceans and land because we need the oxygen that these trees and plants make out of carbon dioxide.
The very idea of eliminating carbon dioxide seems to show that the world population will decrease as people will starve to death due to little or no food being available from the elimination of carbon dioxide. Think about that for a while, the entire world will suffer under a Net Zero carbon dioxide ideology. Here we have to state that maybe this is what the “elites” want because only the most powerful will have access to food and other needs to survive. This is looking like a Bill Gates/World Economic Forum/World Health Organization approach to “force” the decline of the world population by using the fake ideas of carbon dioxide removal to sustain lives.
There has been a recent paper by two world-known and top American scientists that has destroyed the idea of removing carbon dioxide to a “Net Zero” range. This paper addresses the entire idea and what it will cause if the removal of carbon dioxide is pushed forward. We have to understand the effects of carbon dioxide and what it has done in the past, as well as what it will do in the future. One hint, have you noticed how trees and vegetation, as a whole, seem to be getting GREENER?
Let us show you a few excerpts from the very interesting paper by these two top American scientists so maybe you can begin to understand that carbon dioxide is our friend and not a death knell to the world as the “green” people would leave you to believe. In an article by Chris Morrison, it shows what we have to question and demand answers.
Billions of people around the world face starvation if Net Zero policies ban the production of nitrogen fertiliser derived from fossil fuels. This is the stark warning from two top American scientists who say that eliminating fossil fuel-derived nitrogen fertilisers and pesticides “will result in about half the world’s population not having enough food to eat”. They add that eliminating Net Zero fertiliser will create “worldwide starvation”.
In a wide-ranging paper titled ‘Challenging ‘Net Zero’ with Science‘, Emeritus Professors William Happer and Richard Lindzen of Princeton and MIT respectively, along with geologist Gregory Wrightstone, state that Net Zero – the global movement to eliminate fossil fuels and its emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases – to be “scientifically invalid and a threat to the lives of billions of people”.
The battle over nitrogen fertiliser is being hard fought by green activists who argue for massive reductions in its use and more organic methods to be mandated. This can extend to fanaticism, as marked by the Guardian’s George Monbiot who argues for an end to dependence on farming. The ground for less choice and food is also being prepared in academia. Recently, three barking academics operating through the University of Leeds suggested World War II rationing could be an effective way to reduce carbon emissions. Also harking back to the days of spam and when spivs controlled parts of the supply chain was the actress Joanna Lumley, who has suggested a return to a points distribution system and a form of wartime rationing.
Back on Planet Reality, the authors publish the graph below showing a “remarkable” increase in crop yields after the widespread use of nitrogen fertiliser began around 1950.
See the web site above for the graph.
John Christy is a professor of atmospheric science and the Alabama State Climatologist. He complied the graph below showing the percentage of US weather stations that exceeded 100°F at nearly 1,000 stations across the country.
We should look at the graph below and realize that what the Governments and IPCC have been saying is wrong and has to not be adhered to.
Numerous examples are supplied. The authors quote Professor Steven Koonin, a former Under-Secretary of Science for President Obama, as noting in his recent book Unsettled, that, “observations extending back over a century indicate that most types of extreme weather events don’t show any significant change”. Koonin is said to show “multiple egregious examples” of both fabricating data and omitting contradictory data on extreme weather in the U.S. Government Fourth Climate Science Special Report (CSSR) of 2017. The report claims that there were marked changes in temperature extremes across the U.S. The number of high temperature records set in the past two decades “far exceeds” the number of low temperature records, it claims.
Go to the web site above to see that as CO2 emissions go up our world temperature goes down. These are facts that may be what the “green” people will not show because they want to say that their “Net Zero” approach is causing the decline in temperatures while it is really due to a natural affect that they just do not want people to see or be able to state because they want to control your lives and Force you to use inefficient modes of transportation and Force you to give up your style of living so they can place you into a centrally controlled 15 minute city where you own nothing and as the WEF leader, Klaus Schwab stated, “You will own nothing and be happy.”
Koonin summaries the evidence on extreme temperatures by noting: “The annual number of high temperature records set shows no significant trend over the past century, nor over the past 40 years”. Happer and Lindzen observe a downward trend in high temperatures over nearly 100 years, while CO2 emissions have risen, and “respectfully suggest” that every agency analysing heat waves and high temperatures “has the scientific obligation to apply the scientific method to contradictory facts and avoid fabricating facts”.
Koonin notes that the CSSR graph with its alarming heading is a “textbook example of fabricating data”. The CSSR chart does not provide temperature data but the “unusual ratio” of record highs to lows. It is “shockingly misleading”, he says. These things matter, concludes Koonin. The false notion of more frequent U.S. high temperatures is likely to “pollute” subsequent reports. It should also matter to those who proclaim the “unimpeachable authority of assessment reports”, including the media, which give voice to such misleading conclusions.
The authors are distinctly unimpressed with the work of the United Nations IPCC. They note the process of compiling reports is governed by two rules – all Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs) are approved line by line by member governments, and these SPMs override any inconsistent conclusions scientists write for IPCC reports.
Late last year, Melissa Fleming, Under-Secretary for Global Communications at the United Nations, told a World Economic Forum ‘disinformation’ seminar that “we own the science” around climate change. We think the world should know it, she continued, so we partnered with Google to ensure only UN results appear at the top. Happer and Lindzen quote the late Nobel physics laureate Richard Feynman who said: “No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles.” They add: “The legitimacy of scientific content is determined by the scientific method. None of the IPCC SPMs, models, scenarios and other findings asserting that dangerous climate warming is caused by CO2, greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel is valid science; they are merely the opinions of IPCC governments.”
With just what is shown here, we should question everything said about carbon dioxide because this seems to imply that the elite people of the WEF and WHO may well be setting the world up for a serious disaster by which they will not be affected.
In an article by Nadya Swart from November 4, 2022, it is clearly shown what one Dr. William Happer says. We will show the entire article below because it is extremely important to read and understand as the approach by world governments may well be the death of us all should we do as they want us to do.
Elimination of CO2 is a suicide pact – Professor William Happer on climate change misconceptions and hysteria
4th November 2022 by Nadya Swart
It’s safe to assume no one consciously sets out to challenge a narrative as deeply entrenched and emotionally charged as climate change. Dr William Happer, an American physicist and Professor Emeritus in the Department of Physics at Princeton University, certainly didn’t. It was only in 1991, upon Happer’s appointment by President George W Bush as director of Energy Research in the US Department of Energy, that his interaction with climate change authorities – and their refusal to engage in customary scientific debate on climate change – piqued his interest. Thereafter, Happer was dismissed for his contrarian views and ‘head butting’ with climate change luminary Al Gore, only to be brought back to Washington by former president Donald Trump in 2018. BizNews spoke to Happer (83) about his prodigious career and discovery that the burgeoning climate change hysteria had no scientific basis. Happer meticulously detailed why and how CO2, the “demon gas”, is not a pollutant but is essential to mankind’s prosperity. – Nadya Swart
Professor William Happer on the effect of carbon dioxide on planet Earth
Carbon dioxide is what drives life on Earth. The growth of plants depends on carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide in the air diffuses into the leaves of plants through little holes, and the plants combine this with water and it requires energy. This energy comes from sunlight. So, the combination of carbon dioxide, the so-called pollutant, water and sunlight is what makes life. You know, that’s what we live on. And carbon dioxide at the present time is much lower [in] concentration than has prevailed over most of geological history. [During] most of geological history, it’s pretty clear from proxy records, CO2 levels have been two or three times greater than they are now. We probably don’t have enough fossil fuels around to restore those levels where plants evolve and where they function best.
They’re shrinking because of more CO2. And the reason is that there are a number of benefits from more CO2, but one of the most important ones is that if there’s more CO2, plants can live with less water. They don’t waste as much water with more CO2 in the air, because they grow leaves with fewer holes in them so they don’t leak as much water. And the little holes, the stomata – the little mouths, that’s what it means and it’s where the CO2 comes in – don’t open as wide. So, the problem with sucking CO2 out of the air, which is what plants have to do, is for every CO2 molecule that diffuses into your leaf, you lose a hundred water molecules diffusing the other way. This is a real dilemma for the planet.
It’s true. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it warms the Earth, but the warming isn’t enough to matter. It’s very small. And so, it’s probably beneficial on balance. If you double CO2, it seems like a lot, that’s a 100% increase of CO2. How much does that affect the cooling radiation that goes off to space? That sounds like a lot, but in effect it only decreases the radiation to space by 1%. So, 100% increase of CO2, 1% decrease in radiation to space. It’s a very small effect, and you don’t have to change the Earth’s temperature very much or cloudiness very much to bring it back into equilibrium with the situation before you increase the CO2.
So, it’s an ineffective climate influencer. Yet you get this demon gas that is going to cause us all to boil to death or something like that. Nothing could be further from the truth. It’s a trivial gas, but it’s very, very good for life on Earth. More CO2 has been wonderful for mankind because it helps provide the abundance of food we have today and it’s caused no harm, whatever.
On climate change activism having become like a religious cult
It is a religious cult for many people. Many people have stopped believing in traditional religions, you know? So, they don’t believe in God, but they need something beyond themselves to believe in. What could be more noble than saving the planet? “The planet is threatened by the demon gas CO2, so we’re going to save it.” The fact that it means essentially suicide for the human race doesn’t get into their brains. But that is what it means. You cannot immediately eliminate CO2 and let the human population survive. It can’t be done. So, it’s a suicide pact, you know, what is being proposed.
The movement is a joke – a little bit – but it’s not so different from a coalition of organised crime and religious fanaticism. And the religious fanatics … You know, you don’t argue with someone about their religion. This is not a joking matter. It brings crusades and religious wars and God knows what. So, that’s a big problem. There is this religious aspect; so many people now have been brainwashed into thinking there really is an emergency. And anyone who stands in the way of saving the planet is Satan incarnate. They are sincere people but they’re just badly misled.
Many of the most vociferous climate emergency folks; if you press them, they say, “Yes, the real problem is not fossil fuels, it’s human beings. You know, there are just too many people. We should not have more than a billion people.” We’re roughly eight billion now, so that means seven out of eight of us should disappear from the planet. This is extremely dangerous. It’s an evil cult.
On what has been lost owing to climate hysteria
The alarmist community recognised 20 years ago that the warming is a lot less than their models had predicted. “Just you wait,” they’d say, “Sooner or later it will warm. But in the meantime, we need something else to keep the alarm going.” And they seized on extreme weather and rising sea levels and ocean acidification… Things that really were not warming. And they changed the name from global warming to climate change because warming wasn’t going to cut it. There wasn’t enough warming.
Earth has an unstable climate which isn’t very well understood to this day, and it would be wonderful if we understood it better. But I think our ability to understand it has been set back very badly by the climate hysteria. So, what could’ve been 20, 30 years of good, basic research and real understanding of the climate has been wasted with hysteria about this false climate emergency, which does not exist. In the meantime, the real parts of the climate – which would be good to understand – have been ignored.
This may be one of the best articles to illustrate just what is really going on. We have to ask questions and demand answers because what we are told is just not true. How many times have we heard Al Gore say that we would be under water by 1990, 2000, or any other date he has given, and the government stood behind him each time even though none of what he stated ever happened and none of the predictions from the media have ever come to pass.
We have seen that the beginning of the modern increase in CO2 emissions began in the post-WW II industrial boom. Yet, that great rise in CO2 was accompanied by a significant 33-year span of global cooling from 1944–1976. If CO2 is the primary driver of modern temperature change, why did temperatures actually fall during this time span? It was this cooling period that caused many scientists in the late 1970s to predict that we were entering a new ice age.
Source(s): CO2: Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2016) Global CO2 emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning Cement Manufacture and Gas Flaring 1751 – 2013. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, DOI 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010
We also see that they claim sea levels will rise due to the heat produced by carbon dioxide, but this is also a huge lie. See below.
Climate scientists have determined, and both sides agree, that the warming effect of each molecule of CO2 decreases significantly (logarithmically) as its concentration increases. This is one reason why there was no runaway greenhouse warming when the concentration of CO2 was approaching 20 times that of today. This inconvenient fact, important though it is, is kept very well hidden and is rarely mentioned, for it undermines the theory of future catastrophic climate change. Diminishing returns apply.
A more detailed description of the chart for the physics aficionados is provided here by Dr. William Happer:
“The blue curve shows how the thermal radiation flux Z(C) from Earth to space changes with the concentration C of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. This example is for a temperate, summertime latitude. C is measured in parts per million (ppm) of all atmospheric molecules. At the current value of the CO2 concentration, about C = 400 ppm, the flux is Z(400 ppm) = 277 Watts per square meter (W/m^2). If all the CO2 could be removed from Earth’s atmosphere, so C = 0, but there were no changes in the concentrations of the remaining greenhouse gases (water vapor, ozone, methane and nitrous oxide) and no changes in the atmospheric temperature profile, the flux would be larger, Z(0 ppm)= 307 Watts (W/m^2), shown by the blue dot on the vertical axis of the graph. Adding the greenhouse gas CO2 diminishes the flux to space, very rapidly for the first few parts per million of CO2, as one can see from the blue curve. But as more CO2 is added a law of diminishing returns comes into play. The blue curve is almost flat for current concentrations of CO2, so the greenhouse effect is very insensitive to changes in CO2 concentrations. In the jargon of radiative transfer the greenhouse effect is said to be “saturated.”
The vertical red lines show the decrease of flux to space caused by successive increases of the CO2 concentration C by 50 ppm increments. The increments are so small that they need to be multiplied by a factor of 100 to be clearly visible on the graph. Except for concentrations C that are almost zero, every doubling of CO2 concentrations decreases the radiation to space by 3 W. For example, the first red bar show that increasing C from 50 ppm to 100 ppm decreases the radiation to space by 300/100 W/m^2 = 3 W/m^2.”
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report (TAR3) stated “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.”
Tide Gauges all over the world measure the height of the seas where they touch the land. Long-term tide gauge records show a long steady rise in relative sea levels over the entire length of their records, sometimes longer than a hundred years, with no acceleration. NOAA places this rate of rise at about 1.7-1.9 mm per year – or the thickness of two U.S. dimes stacked together.
NOAA Tides and Currents: “The absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7 +/- 0.3 millimeters/year during the 20th century.”
We have illustrated throughout graphs and statements to show without any doubts that carbon dioxide does not hurt our environment but it actually helps our environment by supplying plants and trees with an abundant supply of carbon dioxide to use for their growth. If this carbon dioxide is diminished, we lose plants and trees. NASA has even stated in a recent release that the earth is turning greener, plants and trees are growing better and greener due to their absorption of carbon dioxide. If we decrease the carbon dioxide to plants, we are also decreasing the oxygen they produce which would be very bad for all animals and oxygen using forms of life.
Trees are estimated to remove some 5.47 Billion tons of carbon dioxide each year, but if that carbon dioxide is reduced, trees will not remove what is needed for their growth and they will die off and the oxygen they produce will also decrease making the environment even harsher due to low oxygen levels because we cut the life-giving carbon dioxide from the trees.
We now end this article and do sincerely hope that we see it passed around a billion times so that people will see that we are being misled about carbon dioxide.
Become an insider!
Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.