C – O – 2 – is – good – for – you!

Dave 07IWUZ reading the Economist Magazine  and was startled to see an article admitting that increases in atmospheric CO2 levels are causing a massive increase in plant growth around the world. Since 1982, an area double the size of the United States has begun to turn green. Why? Well, it’s partly because some colder areas have warmed  since a 30 year cold snap ended around 1980. (Global warming!) Plants do much better in heat than in cold.

But the biggest greening effect has been from – wait for it – an increase in CO2 levels from about 300 ppm in 1952 just over 400 ppm today. Does that mean that CO2 is a good thing? Of course! Greenhouse operators have pumped CO2 into their buildings for decades.

smokestack-co2There’s more! The Economist: “Studies conducted in greenhouses have found that plants can photosynthesize up to 40% faster when concentrations of CO2 are between 475 and 600 ppm.” Does this suggest that plant growth would benefit from even higher levels of CO2?

Again, of course. We know that during the periods when the earth was covered in vegetation from pole to pole, CO2 levels were much higher than today. We also know, that higher CO2 concentrations enable plants to use less water.

So, the human caused climate change/global warming catastrophe has been cancelled? We wish.  After all, The Economist, like Scientific American, National Geographic and most of the media, are totally invested in climate alarmism.

To be fair, in July 2009, National Geographic did put this article in it’s Daily News section. One line says: “Emerging evidence is painting a scenario in which rising temperatures could benefit millions of Africans in the driest parts of the continent.” Bet you didn’t hear about that on the CBC or PBS.

But mixed in with all the good stuff about CO2, the Economist article uses phrases like: “the wet bits of the world will probably become wetter, while dry parts will become drier.” “Rainfall patterns may change.” “Higher temperatures could kill tropical forests.” And “the precise details are still unclear.” Unclear? No kidding!

What is perfectly, abundantly, irrefutably clear is that the science is not settled, and anyone who tells you that it is, is either speaking from ignorance, or they are deliberately attempting to deceive you.

The Economist article concludes by saying, that while CO2 gobbling plants have probably reduced the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2, the resultant global greening offers only “a little breathing space,” and that: “kicking the fossil fuel habit remains the only option.”

polar-bearsHere’s another option. How about kicking every politicized climate scientist and science writer off the planet for a while; maybe send them to Mars with Leonardo Di Caprio, considering that not one of their; “might,” “maybe,” “possibly,” catastrophes has materialized. For instance, in the past 30 years, despite all the hand wringing, Polar Bear numbers are way up.

(I ask you, do those guys look stressed?)

Come to think of it; neither have any of the alarmist’s absolutely positive “wills,” “shalls,” or, “we’ve reached the tipping point,” prognostications proven true. When a theory is consistently wrong, do you think maybe it’s time to look for another theory?

So I say, let the greening of the Earth continue. Ladies and Gentlemen, start your engines.

I’m a small c conservative who believes in good, small, government; entrepreneurial capitalism; and helping ourselves and our neighbors, so I’ve had some interesting back-and-forths with readers who hang out farther to the left.

I believe that at a very fundamental level; Marxists, Communists, Socialists, and Social Democrats are all members of the same family; they just approach their mission with different degrees of urgency, or viciousness. Next couple of weeks, I’ll take a look at what I believe that means.

Like and Share us on Facebook, and Follow us on Twitter. And if you agree that conservatives need to do a better job of getting our message out, I invite you to JOIN US, and become a member of the Let’s Do It Ourselves community.

Tags: , ,

5 Comments on “C – O – 2 – is – good – for – you!”

  1. Derry December 2, 2016 at 2:29 PM #

    Well said although if too many begin to think this way, poor Al, David and Leo may suffer reduced incomes.

  2. Lawrence Bergreen December 2, 2016 at 3:11 PM #

    A good bit of info, I support it 100% thank you for putting it out there. I am flumexed by the lack of sensible wide thinking re climate change and also other positions and philosophies. People jump into a thinking mode and become radicalized and do not use a broad tho’t process.
    Keep it up.

  3. Randall Morrison December 6, 2016 at 1:21 PM #

    Just a couple of notes:

    There is a huge difference between socialists/communists and social democrats. The former would omit, eventually, the capitalist system. The latter wants only to eliminate or assuage the negative aspects of capitalism, starting with extreme wealth and extreme poverty.

    The idea that human intervention in the planet’s ecosystem is likely to result in something positive is sadly funny. I mean what could go wrong? At this point the warming oceans filled with plastic and the air in some places not fit for human consumption and the areas of deforested land resulting in erosion etc. are just a few general examples of what is currently happening. Somewhere I read that “pride goeth before the fall”. The sooner we get off carbon the better, I think. We humans are filthy and the planet deserves better.

  4. guy plecash December 9, 2016 at 10:14 PM #

    So we caused the last four ice-age/warming cycles too? Without even being there? Ooo! Looks like our hubris exceeds even our filthiness. I think the first step in ‘getting off carbon’ might be to start by getting it off of you – or out of you. You are aware, no doubt, that every organic structure in your body is built around the Evil Element. When you make the switch to hydrosilicates do give us a dingle. We’ll be fascinated.

    • Randall Morrison December 10, 2016 at 2:02 PM #

      We are star dust!!!!! Yes, I am aware but I’m not sure what that has to do with the discussion at hand. Having said that though, filling our dead bodies with chemical preservatives and encasing said body in a lacquered box and putting it in the ground cannot be good either. And cremation!! Burning up all that carbon and other chemicals in the body, not to mention the other compounds in our teeth, hearts and other organs cannot be the best solution either. A biodegradable sack in a hole in the ground seems a better way to reinvest the the dust. And out with the ashes!!!!!

      I’m not sure why you suggested that I suggested humans caused the ice ages…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: